Materialists when you tell them that reason requires faith in their ability to reason.
 |
 Ape Out Shirt $21.68 |
|
Materialists when you tell them that reason requires faith in their ability to reason.
Materialists when you tell them that reason requires faith in their ability to reason.
|
Ape Out Shirt $21.68 |
|
Materialists when you ask them to show you nothing:
Most of them delegate their reasoning to higher authority
Isn't the ability to reason self evident? Like I think therfore I am.
Even that can be questioned because you have no way of knowing your thoughts are your own and, indeed, they are not.
>you have no way of knowing your thoughts are your own
That doesn't really matter, thinking and reasoning is happening nonetheless, sure I msy be wrong about the true nature of my mind but I know for sure that it exists in some capacity
Not really. It could be a fake mind and you could be a fake person. What does the rationalist know, really? But the point of the thread is that elevating reason over faith and intuition absolutely requires faith.
why?
>It could be a fake mind and you could be a fake person.
But it still something, the power of I think therefore etc etc is that even if the mind is fake something is still reasoning and thinking.
Also to ad, reasoning is what we call the activity ofbthe mind, it's a post hoc definition, I don't need to have faith in it
>It could be a fake mind and you could be a fake person.
This sort of analogy does not apply here.
The thinking thing is whatever is at the root of the discussion, whatever else it is controlling is not the thinking thing.
They just ignore it and hope no one notices.
>reason requires faith in their ability to reason
what does this mean?
For a person to rely on reason, one must have faith in his ability to reason in the first place
Can't their ability to reason be seen right here in the real world?
>Can't their ability to reason be seen right here in the real world?
Clearly no because Materialists constantly commit bad life decisions
Citation needed
>Citation needed
I do not need a citation for a general observation. Many atheists and materialists online are fat and childless nobodies and they clearly didn't think their lives through, leading me to question their ability to reason. Which is what I said early, they don't actually think for themselves but follow only what other people say or what is fashionable to think
I've seen plenty of spiritual people do regrettable things.
they're probably not the right religion
You men christianity right? Seen plenty of christians also do dumb things
American christians are more likely to be obese than the nonreligious according to the actual statistics
>American christians are more likely to be obese than the nonreligious according to the actual statistics
Sorry but Cleetus from Sneedville Tennessee is excused by virtue of his being 60 years old and not a 30 year old culturally-israeli urbanite
>Yes but uhhhh ackchoally
You know they adjust for variables like age, right
Your reasoning isn't very sound.
Christlards are fatbodies. They are also less intelligent and mote poor on average.
The clear daytime sky is also blue in case you were wondering.
You forgot your Ricky Gervais.
I am offended that you confused me for that poster, delete this post now
Even something as simple as 1+1=2 requires a conviction that your mind is functional and capable of being correct. Reason merely assists and directs faith.
Or you can check if the results you came up with align with what is observed in the real world
Then you need to have a conviction that your senses are functional as well.
You know something exists because you are conscious, not because you are rational. Reason can tell you more about its nature only if you trust it first.
>Reason can tell you more about its nature only if you trust it first.
Yes but it's fonded on those basic building blocks like cognition, I don't need to have faith in it, there isn't a choice in sayng a=a.
You could even add an evolutionary agle to it, since reasoning aids survival, reasoning as we have it must be viable in some capavity.
*since humans are alive
>a=a
how do you know that?
not an argument
God isn‘t a israelite, in the the sky, or invisible
>not an argument
Actually it is, you just can't address it.
You said you "don‘t need" something, which is a value judgement without a grounding
Oh wow christoids devolving into the most bullshit sophistry imaginable. Not him but end yourself
Not an argument
It's not a value judgement though. You're saying that the empiricist can't know whether his senses and reasoning are valid. And that's fair enough, but what is the Big Problem with this? If they're not valid, there's really nothing you can do about it. If they are valid, there is no problem.
How can you say it‘s not a problem?
If it's a problem, how can I know that it's a problem? And how could I ever solve it?
You don't have to think of it as a problem, but you can't argue to others that it isn't.
Christian trinitarianism, which grounds reason, ethics, possibility of knowledge, etc. in God, but you have to assume those things existing to put confidence in your senses normatively. If you deny the existence of those immaterial constants then you're admitting that you can't make arguments to begin with.
>which grounds reason, ethics, possibility of knowledge, etc. in God
You know we have brains right?
Through Yahweh I have this knowledge, not by autonomous reasoning
First prove that you actually hit me with the pipe
>First prove that you actually hit me with the pipe
It's a hypothetical, anon. Do you think that it is impossible to hit you with a pipe and give you brain damage?
Of course its possible, but you can't prove that you did it in your nonsense worldview. Re read
I am not arguing that I hit you with a pipe. I'm asking you how your epistemology would help if I hit you with a pipe and gave you brain damage that made you think you're Napoleon.
What if I just killed you? What would your argument be if you were dead?
That is not an answer to my question, anon.
How would your epistemology help if I hit you with a pipe and gave you brain damage that made you think you're Napoleon?
It wouldn't. Read
And there you go. You can't even prove that I didn't hit you with a pipe already and that you aren't hallucinating this exchange while sitting in a padded room.
Neither do you. He has faith, if you don't what do you base your actions on? You could be Napoleon or whatever or inherently an evil creation made by an evil force somehow. If you do any action it may be objectively wrong in a very important way. You can only reason based on given premises so reason can't save you.
>He has faith, if you don't what do you base your actions on?
Reason. And if my reasoning abilities are invalid, then I don't have any way of reasoning myself to a reasonable position, so it doesn't matter whether I have faith or not.
>Reason, instinct
You act in faith that it's all working, that aligning with these instincts and reason is "good".
It's not faith, it's just the recognition of the fact that I have no other options.
>You act in faith
Nta, but you don't need faith for instict, instinct works regardles, you cannot fell it
That's actually fairly close to Hume's position on the topic, though iirc he called it habit instead of instinct.
*Cannot no feel it
Let me tell you from experience anon. You will still be able to use logic when you leave Christianity.
You will still have a working brain, there’s nothing to be afraid of.
>You will still be able to use logic when you leave Christianity.
This post is evidence to the contrary.
>no argument
As expected
Christians literally score lower on IQ tests, are fatter and make less money than atheists and agnostics. Christians are objectively, factually lacking in logical capacity.
>you don't what do you base your actions on?
Not him but humans base their actions on instinct and experience. Emotion is the general motivator at the core
>christoid is raging that his parroted talking points are eviscerated and he’s not smart enough or man enough to admit it, move in and learn from his mistakes
I’m not a materialist or an atheist but what a pussy dodge that is.
You’re refusing to engage in his hypothetical because you know it proves you wrong.
You know if you have to bullshit to defend your ideas, your ideas are bad right? Fix them you fricking pussy.
>You don't have to think of it as a problem, but you can't argue to others that it isn't.
Of course I can, why couldn't I? If my mind and senses are working correctly, then I'm right. If my mind and senses aren't working correctly, then it doesn't matter.
We can try something more concrete. Let's say I hit you over the head with a pipe and give you brain damage. You now think that you're Napoleon. How does your epistemology get you out of that?
>which grounds reason, ethics, possibility of knowledge, etc. in God, but you have to assume those things existing to put confidence in your senses
I don’t know about you but I was able to use my senses before I could even form a sentence. When did you learn to talk?
You're assuming your memories aren't false
I never claimed that, please read
I did read it. And perhaps you only wrote that because I hit you over the head with a pipe.
I recognize that possibility. Do you think truth claims need justification?
The alternative is to admit that you can't make arguments
>Do you think truth claims need justification?
Do you? Keep in mind that whatever the reply is, it could just be a result of me hitting you over the head with a pipe.
Yes I do think that
How do you justify that in light of the possibility that I might've hit you over the head with a pipe?
That isn't possible
Anyone who uses logic and reason is better justified to believe in God than not to
>That isn't possible
Perhaps, and perhaps that's only what you think because I hit you over the head with a pipe.
>Anyone who uses logic and reason is better justified to believe in God than not to
No lmao, why would logic imply god?
Because logic needs a justification
No it doesn't, why would it need justification, it's just how our brains interpret aspects of the world
Because sophistry is the last refuge of the fat and sweaty christcuck
What sophistry?
>my claims don't need justification
Can't argue with that one
You’re basically arguing that having a working brain is mythology.
It is for the materialist
Is reason your claim?
No, you claimed Logic needs justification, and I said it doesn't because it's how our brains make sense of the world, it's like saying seeing colours needs justification
How did you arrive at that conclusion?
Because we use logic to make sense of the world?
You used logic then?
Probably yes, I put in relation two things, still doesn't need faith though
It’s a grounding axiom.
How did you arrive at the conclusion that you aren't hallucinating from the hit to the head you took after I swung at you with a pipe?
Why don’t you tell us why Christians tend to be fatter dumber and make less money if they’re the only ones with capacity for logic? Why does converting to Christianity not cure moronation, brain damage or raise IQ?
I’ll tell you why, logic arises from the brain learning about reality and applying knowledge.
If you leave Christianity today your brain will still work tomorrow. But if you get cracked in the head with a pipe you will have trouble reasoning tomorrow
Protestants aren't christians
I shot you first
You're wrong and that's a grounding axiom
So you're not claiming anything then?
>So you're not claiming anything then?
Logic doesn't need to presuppose it is true
Why not?
Because you're currently laying on the ground bleeding to death
>Because you're currently laying on the ground bleeding to death
Okay, not it actually seems like you're hallucinating.
But seriously, why keep up the charade if your epistemology can't even deal with the possibility that it's a product of being hit over the head with a pipe?
Because the alternative is the impossibility of knowing anything at all
Because people are most likely to be converted by emotional appeals, not reasoning
>Because the alternative is the impossibility of knowing anything at all
How can you know anything at all if it's possible that you got hit over the head with a pipe?
How is it possible for you to hit me with a pipe when I shot you in the head first?
Not an argument. I know the pipe example is funny, but it's a serious objection. If you'd rather ignore it to feel more comfortable, be my guest, but that doesn't reflect well on the rigour of your thinking.
Neither of you can logically prove either of these statements
Yes it's very easy,can you choose logic? Can you tell me that a is not equsl to a is logicaly dound?
And I'm not claiming to be able to do that (pipe guy btw). My stance is that we can't prove whether our reason and senses are fundamentally capable of correct judgement, but if they're not, there's nothing we can do about it. On the other hand, he's claiming that he can provide grounding which resolves these sort of issues. So far it seems like he can't.
>but if they're not, there's nothing we can do about it.
Tbh the fact that humans and animals can navigate the world around us implyes a modicum of viability and accuracy of the senses
That's only if you assume that your judgement of how well humans and animals can navigate the world is correct.
No I'm not assuming anithyng, it's completely a posteriory observation of animal life not being extinct
*a posteriori
Your senses are telling you this story about animals. It could be all be a lie a demon implanted 5 seconds ago.
That really doesn't matter, it only matters that my experience is coherent,I may never know what true reality is but since it is interpreted by the brain coherently I can work from inside this "bubble" so to speak. You should read Kant btw
>I can work from inside this "bubble"
And that's the point. We act based on faith not reason. Reason is the next step, we use reason to understand and act because we believe we should understand and act. We accept the premises given by our situation in alignment with whatever made us.
>We act based on faith not reason.
No we act based on istict at the bare minimum, it's not an act of faith since you can't choose it
That works also for religion, a demon could have made it up
Technically true but also moronic. Like you're deliberately avoiding the point. I used "demon" in this context because we're talking about the complete unknown. It's also a reference to Philip K Dick and the history of thought experiments.
The history of religion is not in the same category as what is beyond logic. It's not as much a question of faith as it is of studying history.
>you can't choose it
You can using reason. You can reject the source or call it a demon, choose to not align with anything given, reject coherence and logic, pursue murder, antinatalism, suicide etc.
No you can't lmao, show me a logicaly sound reasoning thst a is not a
>a logicaly sound reasoning
No. If I choose to reject logic I don't have to justify anything. I'm completely "free". Lot's of morons have put forward this kind of philosophy, most end up in jail.
>If I choose to reject logic
Sure you can say the words, but you can't will your brain to stop comparing things, like you can't will it to stop earing or seeing.
>It could be all be a lie a demon implanted 5 seconds ago.
I love this mentality because it's literally what leads to constant Christian insperging as none of them can agree which interpretation is inspired by satan and which is the real one.
Thus it follows that your position is equally as moronic as a 64 IQ southern baptist
Any denial of logic uses logic in its denial, so no you can't do that. That only proves that logic exists, not WHY it exists
>Thus it follows that your position is equally as moronic as a 64 IQ southern baptist
Care to elaborate?
Neither of you have anything justifying your nonsense beliefs
It's true that I can do that, but it doesn't explain why logic exists
>why logic exists
And I don't need to,right? The claim is that to use logic you presuppose it is true and it isn't
>convert to Christianity because of this
>immediately my logic tells me an Iron Age god of mythology didn’t have a 30 year old virgin magician son on earth
>leave Christianity
Well that was a fun trip
>Neither of you have anything justifying your nonsense beliefs
My belief is based on the fact that I've never come across any convincing answers to the problem of hard solipsism and similar issues. I think Wittgenstein's proposed solution is interesting, but it's limited to solipsism, not scepticism about reason.
When you find a framework that can resolve the pipe problem, let me know.
So you're just assuming that you didn't get hit in the head by a pipe?
Yeah, sure. However, I'm also acknowledging the possibility that I could've been hit with a pipe. It's just that if I indeed have been hit in the head with the pipe, there's nothing I can do about it, so I don't see why I should dwell on it.
I think the same way
Yes, all beliefs about anything are fundamentally based on unfalsifiable claims
How did you come to that conclusion?
You can't choose logic
That doesn't explain why it exists. If you don't care about that, why are you arguing?
>That doesn't explain why it exists
As I said the question wasn't why it exists, but if you need to presuppose it is true; does a computer have faith in its programing?
If objects behave in any law-like way, there will always be some underlying structure that can be interpreted as a particular logic by a conscious agent. This line of reasoning just reduces to "why is there anything at all".
It's not even the original question and I'm guessing his aswer is that somehow logic implies god
We could be a brain in a vat yes anon holy shit that’s so deep I never considered that
Guess that means I should stop getting pussy for Jesus. Just kidding, take all the pills in your house and lay down in the bathtub
Feel free to have a nice day with hedonism
Read
Logically you have to explain what you're basing your argument on. If you don't care about that, you're not making an argument.
All logical argumentation is spiritually bankrupt. Understanding his arguments won't convert you.
I'm basing the argument on logic, why do I need to prove where it comes from to use it?
So you're allowed to be circular and I'm not?
>use logic
>that's a circular argument
Proving logic with logic is definetly circular but because,again logic is not chosen and that is not what I'm interested in doing.
You can't choose logic, therefore there is no act of faith or presupposition going on, it could have been made by aliens or lord baal, it still doesn't need it
begging the question
What question? I've already stated my position, the only rebuttal I got is "you have to show where logic comes from.
Because he doesn't understand the difference between ontological and epistemic grounding.
You’re parroting pre-suppositional apologetics crafted for Christians They don’t work on non-Christians.
They’re purely crafted to hijack the anxiety a doubting Christian already has, scramble their brain and basically paralyze them so they don’t leave.
When you use them on secular guys you’re just annoying them and you sound genuinely schizophrenic.
I know you’re not smart enough to comprehend this I’m just posting it for others.
Let's assume you're completely right. Why can't you say anything? Why can't you correct us poor misguided souls in any way?
You just repeat stories about what you think is happening, stories than never seem to relate much to anything actually said.
>Why can't you correct us poor misguided souls in any way?
To be honest with you I don’t think grown men who believe in mythology are intelligent enough to change their minds. If you’re a Christian past 20 you’re basically fricked.
I can point out that there’s no proof of the Christian god or how the Bible is full of flaws but you’re just going to parrot apologists because you have no independent internal sense-making ability.
>I know your mind better than you so I don't even need to read any of your posts.
That's braindead. You're dumber than all the morons you jerk off about being better than. There's probably not a single person, Christian or otherwise in my entire country as deranged as you, including people with Down's syndrome.
Stop spreading your cancer and undermining understanding of everything from history to basic logic because of some politically induced derangement. If you think you know better, fricking engage like a reasonable fricking human being.
Okay what’s the proof of the Christian God then?
I'm not watching 20 minutes of some dude who looks like he's just been on a coke binge, just explain it in the thread (which you should be able to if you actually understand what you're saying).
I literally guarantee it is either the vague idea of a creator god or just more pre-suppositional arguments.
Is that the subject? You're jumping around randomly instead of engaging with anything said.
In your incoherent random walk, this tour of your brainwashing you appealed to IQ statistics, physiognomy and how much money you make but never said anything slightly related to the logic.
Right so you don’t have proof of the Christian god.
If you were smart enough to have a chance to be saved from Christianity, that would turn a light on in your head that maybe Christianity isn’t true
The subject isn't about Christian claims about God. That's you, injecting your deranged shit into everything.
I was asked this,
And responded. I’m sorry you can’t accept the answer, but you’ll learn when you’re a man one day.
>And responded
No you demonstrably did not. You started repeating your precious memes and stories again. You didn't correct or even display an understanding of anything said. You're not helping anyone understand anything, you're undermining the possibility at every chance.
Hey if you don’t have proof of your god but still believe it then you are too dumb to be saved. You will relegate your life to a Roman Criss Angel who didn’t get pussy and died crying like a b***h, pretending he was God.
emotional appeals
Factually Christian apologetics are crafted to keep Christians Christian by taking advantage of their specific cognitive and emotional weaknesses and aren’t made for the non-religious. They literally don’t work unless you have a type of guy who gets pulled in stage because he fell under hypnosis in the audience at a hypnotist show
lol
the irony is amazing
Buddy you don’t get it. All these pre-supp arguments are made for doubting Christians, they actually don’t work on non-Christians.
Telling a guy who doesn’t believe in Jesus that he needs Jesus to use logic doesn’t make sense.
It only makes sense to tell that to a Christian trying to walk out of the church.
I don’t use this word often but you really are moronic.
Put it this way, it’s like the theological equivalent of an abusive boyfriend trying to stop his girl from leaving when they say “you’re nothing without me”
It’s like you’re the abusive boyfriend but you’re using that line at a stranger on the street without understanding why they’re just telling you that you’re annoying and discussing the consequences of metal pipes instead of moving his stuff into your trailer
So you can't choose your logic; if I showed two different objects you would immediately grasp the difference, you don't need a justification for that mind action
Christian pre-suppositional apologetics are crafted to mindfrick believers into not leaving by confusing them like this.
The preachers who spread these talking points can’t tell their followers that they won’t work on non- believers.
So what happens is the followers parrot these pre-suppositional apologetics at secular guys, but don’t understand they only work if you’re a follower being essentially psychologically abused with gaslighting into not leaving.
Make no mistake, trying to convince someone their brain won’t work unless they obey you is a form of low grade psychological abuse
>basic logic
>he's trying to convince me my brain won't work unless I obey him
There clearly is something wrong with your brain but I doubt obeying some guy will help.
You’re trying to convince people they can’t think without Jesus, which is a line of attack tailor made for Christians to prevent them from leaving.
The guy you learned that from isn’t allowed to reveal that it’s not for secular people and won’t work on them, because then you’ll figure out he’s lying to you.
So here you are with your thumb in your ass telling a bunch of non-religious guys who statistically are likely to make more money than you and score higher on a iq test than Jesusfreaks that their brains can’t work without Jesus.
>You’re trying to convince people
You're an illiterate idiot telling me you are unable to read or engage with anyone about any subject.
>The guy I learned this from
It's logic. The guy I learned Basic from was a secret esoteric Templar manipulating me through computer programming?
>statistically are likely
But in fact don't.
No you saw a preacher on YouTube use pre-suppositional apologetics and now you’re stupidly trying to turn them on secular guys because you’re too stupid to realize they only work on Christians doubting their faith
More deranged fantasies not relating to anything said.
It's a reference to a scifi writer not a "mentality".
Picrel is literally the presupp argument, lol.
What argument? Something you made up in your head? When you try to repeat what anyone else said it never sounds even close. This means you can't read, you apparently rely entirely on your magical empath powers.
>When you try to repeat what anyone else said it never sounds even close.
Who do you think I am, schizo?
Yeah it's not the argument, but it's an element of the argument. I.e. "you actually believe in god".
You don't grasp on any level how dumb this is?
Pointing out what logic demands is not equivalent to pretending to be able to read your mind.
Putting two and two together to figure out you're holding four nuts is not reading your mind.
How do you know that logic demands this?
Logic demands something beyond logic to be described. It's intuitively the case with a basic grasp on logic and also proven.
Descriptions are logically structured models reflecting elements of the structure of the thing they're describing. A model like that is a system built up from premises. Systems like that are proven to need premises external to the system.
>Logic demands something beyond logic to be described. It's intuitively the case with a basic grasp on logic and also proven.
Alright, show me the proof. Also elaborate whether it needs this grounding to exist or to be used.
Yes, logic exists, yes you can use it, but you can't use logic to JUSTIFY logic without being circular. If you're just going to say that you don't need to justify it, then you're not making an argument.
Logic just exists in and of its own right. What you are talking about is your ability to perceive it.
He won’t allow you to embrace logic but he thinks blindly believing in the god of Christianity is more reasonable.
Good men choose logic over Christianity,
How do you know that? Don't use logic or reason to explain, because it's illogical and unreasonable to be circular.
Because there is an existence, and since there is an existence there is an underlying truth by virtue of things existing (i.e logic).
Logic is a grounding axiom and you’re a dishonest c**t.
You're moronic and wrong and that's a grounding axiom
You're using reasoning and logic to make this statement
>You're using reasoning and logic to make this statement
Nope, I think therefore I am is quite literally the absolute most fundamental basic reality one can perceive. Since I think, I exist. If I exist there is an existence therefore there is an absolute underlying truth by virtue of things existing.
Not true. "I think therefore I am" assumes that thoughts need a subject to experience them
Your "grounding axioms" are totally arbitrary
>Not true. "I think therefore I am" assumes that thoughts need a subject to experience them
Anon this is just peak contrarianism. You're literally just trying to deny that a person can know they exist out of pure spite and refusal to have to back down. Knowing one exists is literally the most fundamental and basic understanding one can have, trying to deny this just makes you look like a pseud moron.
You can't refute it and now you're just flinging insults
If I have thoughts I must exist. You can't have thoughts if you don't exist because if you don't exist you can't do anything.
What do you mean by "I" and why does it necessary follow from the existence of a thought?
Ah we're going down the infinite regression of questions route, where apparently I'm not allowed to terminate at knowing my own existence because... well you just can't!
If you can explain why it follows, go ahead and do it.
You're essentially trying to argue the impossible, that somehow I could think but not exist, even though if I wouldn't be able to do anything if I didn't exist.
Something is happening, you presuppose the "I".
No I perceive the I through my own experience, and thus from that know I exist.
>you presuppose the "I".
I think therefore I am
Youbdon't seem to have a very basic knowledge of phylosophy
The cogito argument has been torn to shreds many times. It actually is very weak and naive.
I'm not watching a shitty youtube """philosopher""", make your own arguments instead of relying on others to do it for you.
It’s pre-suppositional apologetics tailored by Christians to prevent other Christians from leaving the church.
It’s the theological equivalent of an abusive boyfriend telling his girl she’ll be nothing without him.
He’s too stupid to understand it doesn’t work on non-Christians, and his preachers can’t reveal that secret, so here he is yelling at a guy on the street that he’ll be nothing if he breaks up with him, and refusing to return to his smelly trailer with a dirty cross in front.
Yeah but actually none of that is true though
There's a difference between having thoughts and reasoning. As children we think before we reason. Descartes was talking about experience not reason but doesn't want to mention a specific sense like seeing. He also elaborates that this "I" is also unclear so the real thing he can be most sure of is that God exists.
I'm not really quoting Descartes, I don't agree with the idea that somehow you can know god exists more than you know you yourself exists, that's just silly.
The source more obviously exists than the apparent product.
You perceive before you process or reason and reason can't account for that perception, only the mechanical parts are part of what can be described, the fundamental phenomena of perception can not.
Say something moron. Use your words. Use the amazing opportunity never before available in history to engage with other human beings on this magical global forum.
I’m using it well. To laugh at and expose an eastern Roman cult and its adherents. To do my small part as a thinking modern man to accelerate its continued decline.
You are c**ts, you are losing power, and it’s over.
But what are you talking about moron?
>sometimes I can tell everything about a person simply by making up a story and instantly believing it.
Amazing superpower but why not say things that relate to other posts on this forum?
>The source more obviously exists than the apparent product.
All that proves is what I already said, that if I exist there is an underlying reality.
>You perceive before you process or reason and reason can't account for that perception
Not sure what that counters exactly.
You haven't proved your existence, only that there is a thought occurring
>a thought occurring
The notion of "occurence" presupposes time, which the atheist cannot demonstrate on empiricist grounds without begging the question.
>The notion of "occurence" presupposes time
If this is true then kalams cosmological argument is blown out the water since it relies on things existing before time and occurrences happening before it to create it.
>atheist cannot demonstrate
Everyone feels time, it's an istinctual sensation
I can't prove to another person I exist, I can only know to myself that I exist with 100% certainty, and from that fact know that there must be a fundamental truth.
What do you mean by "I" and why does it necessary follow from the existence of a thought?
I really have to ask you where you're going with this or what your actual point is. Are you saying that despite knowing I exist I can't know I exist? I don't see how, at some point you have to assume some termination of infinite regression. I certainly don't see how this helps the Christian argument at all either.
How do you know that you exist? you just keep saying that you know but you won't explain it. The point is that it's hypocritical to call your position logical or better grounded than a Christians. Obviously you're not going to convert.
>How do you know that you exist?
Hey non-Christians. Can you imagine how wrong you would have to be about something to have to resort to this when your view was challenged?
Irrelevant
Is this really the peak of Christian argument? Just going "Erm well actually you can't prove you exist to yourself, therefore Christianity is right (even though my conclusion literally leaves the possibility of anything since I've argued myself down to literally nothing being fundamentally provable)
Like whats the argument here? Why is Christianity fundamentally the one we must presuppose exactly?
>Like whats the argument here? Why is Christianity fundamentally the one we must presuppose exactly?
explained here
No explain it yourself I'm not watching a 20 minute youtube video you lazy homosexual
explained here
These arguments are crafted by Christians trying to stop other Christians from leaving the church.
The preachers can’t reveal that it’s tailored to them, the follower Christians are too dumb to imagine another non-Christians perspective.
So what happens is you get the dumbest Christians trying to mindfrick people who aren’t infected with the Christian mind-virus
Have you ever considered reading any history at all? You don't think there could possibly be any value in sincerely understanding the perspective of someone from a different era? Perhaps someone like Newton or Kepler?
I don’t know what you’re talking about. That anon is confused at the apologist approach and I’m explaining why it doesn’t make sense. They’re too dumb to get these arguments are specifically tailored to psychologically abuse Christians so they don’t leave the church and have no conversion power and don’t even make sense when aimed at someone who isn’t already a Christian
It's that there is nothing provable beyond the current thought, and therefore there's no grounds to criticize Christianity(or any other view for that matter)
>therefore there's no grounds to criticize Christianity(or any other view for that matter)
How does this help Christianity, this leaves Christians with the same problem, that there is no basis with which they can compel people to believe Christianity.
Wrong. See
No logical basis, yes, but nobody actually converts for purely logical reasons anyway.
This just implies that Christianity is arbitrary, which is silly. Even within the bible there are appeals to logic. If you've argued yourself down to the idea that logic can't be justified and you can't even know you yourself exist, there's no basis of Christianity either, so this leaves both parties in the same boat.
Thus you might as well just ignore the entire topic and argue based on world perception than try to argue the impossible.
I know that there are appeals to logical in the bible, the christian view is that God is ABOVE logic, and that our reasoning faculty is flawed, which prevents us from reasoning up to Him, and that we need faith and repentance to accept it.
>the christian view is that God is ABOVE logic, and that our reasoning faculty is flawed, which prevents us from reasoning up to Him, and that we need faith and repentance to accept it.
none of this is justifiable from your own silly argument that you can't prove anything even your own existence.
if you want to prove anything other than the presently existing thought, you have to abandon logic.
>if you want to prove anything other than the presently existing thought, you have to abandon logic.
If you abandon logic you can't even justify this statement
What's your point here
That you're trying to use a logical statement to disprove logic, which is ridiculous. You're trying to make claims on the existence of something while simultaneously saying you can't logically deduce anything exists.
>God is ABOVE logic, and that our reasoning faculty is flawed, which prevents us from reasoning up to Him, and that we need faith and repentance to accept it.
Pretty genius cult doctrine. Guarantees people won’t trust their logical faculties even when they show the cult is false
>this leaves Christians with the same problem
In this context we have established the concept of God but not really any properties of God. It means atheists are moronic but doesn't mean Christians are right.
>In this context we have established the concept of God
No you haven't, you've justified you can't know anything so you can't establish god, certainly not that that god is personal and definitely not that he is the Abrahamic god.
>you can't know anything
Is this actually new to you? You think the Socrates quote is a meme?
I can know the source exists with more certainty than I know that apples exist.
Socrates quote was a statement of humility, not a deranged rejection of even being able to perceive his own existence.
And how can you possibly know a source exists if you say you can't even know anything exists in the first place? If nothing could exist then there would be no source.
Something is happening. As soon as you conceptualize that something logically you have logical causality with a source. It's the first concept that emerges out logically analysing experience.
I can model all this as a lie injected 5 seconds ago but I can't model this without introducing the idea of a source.
>Something is happening.
But you said you can't know that since nobody can know anything. So according to you we can't know something is happening. According to you nothing could be happening right now.
This is just petty and immature anon. Try to be better.
Can you prove to me that logic is justifiable in all possible worlds?
It's intuitive because it seems circular and you can't provide a counter-example of a system that accounts for its own premises recursively. Gödel proves it.
Then what is logic? Do you have a model of what it is that accounts for everything about it? How can I reproduce logic itself?
>Do you have a model of what it is that accounts for everything about it?
Of course not, humans are limited. This is only a problem for Christians who want to claim they know absolute truth despite being unable to justify that claim. The best you can do in reality is go with the closest estimate and try to tend towards truth.
>It's intuitive because it seems circular
Not an argument.
>and you can't provide a counter-example of a system that accounts for its own premises recursively. Gödel proves it.
You're equivocating between epistemic and ontological grounding. I'm specifically about a system where the laws of logic exist, but their use cannot be justified. How do you know you're not in this possible world?
>Not an argument.
Yes it is.
>You're equivocating between epistemic and ontological grounding.
We have no way to talk about the ontological without representing them in systems. That the epistemic has limits is the same point about the limits of logic arrived at from a different angle.
>How do you know you're not in this possible world?
Gödel proved I am in that world.
What do any of these words mean coming from a deranged moron?
>What do any of these words mean coming from a deranged moron
Says the guy trying to use pre-suppositional Christian apologetics on non-Christians without a single clue as to why that won’t work
>Yes it is.
It's really not.
>We have no way to talk about the ontological without representing them in systems.
Whether you have a way to epistemically justify something has no bearing on its ontology.
>Gödel proved I am in that world.
And that really doesn't help your case.
The central problem is that your epistemic justification ("I'm epistemically justified in using logic because of my belief in god") is invalid if the ontology of logic is not actually dependent on god. And since you don't know what the ontology of logic is, you have no way to justify your belief in the proposition that your epistemic justification is valid.
>has no bearing
It's the only way we can relate to any ontology. A dishonest moron can pull this out of his pocket to dishonestly argue against literally anything said. An apple is not actually an apple so anything you say about apples is false.
>I'm epistemically justified in using logic because of my belief in god
What do these words mean when coming from a moron? I clarified what God means in this context. You morons ignore it. By accepting reason you're acting in alignment with whatever placed you in this situation, whatever that is including a 5 second old demon.
>is invalid if the ontology of logic is not actually dependent on god
We rely on logic for everything, your arguments work against anything ever argued for or against. This tool says it can't make itself. That's it, that doesn't mean I suddenly have access to "ontological" absolute truth or whatever moronic baggage you decided to add to my claims for no reason except to express your inherent dishonesty.
>It's the only way we can relate to any ontology.
Sure, but you can't argue "this particular ontology is the only one that would allow me to epistemically ground my belief, therefore it's the correct one". That's putting the cart before the horse.
>What do these words mean when coming from a moron? I clarified what God means in this context. You morons ignore it.
I don't read every single one of your posts, I don't even know which ones are yours. But regardless, no definition of god can dodge the possibility that the ontology of logic is that they're a brute fact.
>We rely on logic for everything, your arguments work against anything ever argued for or against.
When I apply modus ponens, I'm not assuming that logic has a specific ontology. However, you are assuming that in your argument.
>I don't read
Instead you assume wildly and argue against logic itself. That's the cultural fad you morons are part of.
>no definition of god
When it's defined as the the source whatever that may be there's no way to pretend the label is not referencing something.
>the ontology of logic is that they're a brute fact.
That can't be true since logic demands something else accounts for it. If logic is brute fact then this demand is too.
>However, you are assuming that in your argument.
No. I'm talking about what logic says. I trust this thing logic says as much as anything else logic says. Whatever ontological relevance you assign to logical statements is presumably how far the argument applies to its ontology in your mind.
>Instead you assume wildly and argue against logic itself. That's the cultural fad you morons are part of.
I'm not arguing against logic, I'm arguing about the possibility of epistemically grounding it. Also funny you call it a fad given that you're arguing the line if thought of a third rate 20th century American.
>That can't be true since logic demands something else accounts for it. If logic is brute fact then this demand is too.
Brute facts do not require further ontological grounding, that's kind of why they're brute facts.
>No. I'm talking about what logic says. I trust this thing logic says as much as anything else logic says. Whatever ontological relevance you assign to logical statements is presumably how far the argument applies to its ontology in your mind.
Your argument requires that logic be ontologically grounded in god. You don't know that this is true, so you're just making an assumption.
>Brute facts do not require further ontological grounding
Because the concept is purely a way to avoid thinking.
>logic says x
>maybe it's y just because
Okay, maybe?
>You don't know that this is true
I'm not claiming I know it's true any more than I know anything else logic says is true. It's just what logic says.
>According to you nothing could be happening right now.
It would look the same whatever we call it. I can't know with any certainty anything about it including claims about things or happenings.
>It would look the same whatever we call it. I can't know with any certainty anything about it including claims about things or happenings.
But if its nothing it can't look like anything
You think you know something about nothing?
So nothing can be something?
Wow incredible, Christian pre-suppositionalism is fricking wild
>Because the concept is purely a way to avoid thinking.
Are you saying that brute facts are impossible? Note that I never said that logic is a brute fact, my point is that the mere possibility of it being a brute fact makes your argument invalid.
>logic says x
>maybe it's y just because
>Okay, maybe?
What are you referring to?
>I'm not claiming I know it's true any more than I know anything else logic says is true. It's just what logic says.
Logic says that logic cannot be a brute fact? Fascinating, provide the proof then.
Do you think that, under logic, truth claims need justification?
I think that once you adopt a set of axioms which underpin the specific logic that you're using, truth claims need justification with regards to those axioms. However, I think that the axioms themselves cannot be justified.
Then you aren't justified in using logic.
I'm not using logic based on a justification, I'm using it because there is no alternative.
>I'm not using logic based on a justification
So you're logically unjustified in the following statement
>I'm using it because there is no alternative.
That's not a deductive statement, it's a self reporting statement regarding my own mental state. I am incapable of believing that if all men are mortal and Socrates is a man, Socrates isn't mortal.
>self
>my
>own
>I
You haven't logically proved any of these
This is just such worthless philosophy with no value. It doesn't go anywhere or even help your own point, it at best just allows you to avoid any other arguments. I actually do not understand the point of arguing like this or how any of this is supposed to help prove a god exists.
I'm not trying to prove to you that God exists, that's not something that can be proven through logic and reasoning, the point is that nothing can be proven beyond self-excluding cogito through logic and reasoning. Proof that God exists, like anything else, is going to be fundamentally faith-based.
>Proof that God exists, like anything else, is going to be fundamentally faith-based.
Which is worthless since it just boils down to assuming you're right with no basis. It means you have no basis to compel conversion.
No basis in logic or reason. Same as you
So you have an impasse in which no one can prove anything, which doesn't help your cause or beliefs in any way shape or form. You have no basis to assert your religious beliefs above any other and thus cannot argue for conversion of one faith to another.
No basis in logic or reason. That's the point
Then you're in a situation in which you can't actually convert anyone, which is fundamentally at odds with Christian doctrine. Your argument only works if you're subscribing to a nebulous undefined theism that is merely a personal belief, not Christianity which asserts itself beyond that.
Do you really think that christians are converted by autistic arguments like this one? Or are they converted on emotional and perceived spiritual grounds? The bible says "The wisdom of this world is foolishness in the sight of God."
So essentially it's all just individual presuppositions and there's absolutely no way of perceiving which faith is true?
This just makes religion worthless in and of itself as it just becomes whatever the individual presupposes it to be.
The same can be said about literally anything
But you're the one arguing for religion, yet your arguments lend themselves towards nihilism. Your own arguments are self defeating.
That's why we shouldn't ground our appeals in logic for the sake of converting.
But then you can't know anything is true, so you can't know if your faith is real by your own argument, you're just presupposing it. How do you rectify disagreements between two faiths in this case? How does one show it is more right than the other?
In Christianity, we all typically accept broader points across denominations, like the existence of the self, the existence of minds besides our own, the use of reasoning, (some of) the canon of scripture, the history of the church, etc. We presuppose those and we can argue internally from there, using logic and reason, which we believe are granted to us by God.
But you can't there's no way to fundamentally undo disagreements. jehovahs witnesses will say there is no trinity, a catholic will say there is and cite a bible verse, the jehovahs witness says that that verse is mistranslated and is the result of satanic deception. There is absolutely no logical recourse here as one side has presupposed that everything they believe must be right and everything the other person believes that disagrees with them is the product of satan.
Alright, let's say I don't exist. How is that supposed to help your point?
Let's run with Russel's objection, that all we can say is "there is thinking going on. Can this thinking choose not to believe that if all men are mortal, and Socrates is a man, then Socrates is mortal?
>Can this thinking choose not to believe that if all men are mortal, and Socrates is a man, then Socrates is mortal?
Sure. It can reject that there are men and truths. All input is just noise signifying nothing.
>You're just making presuppositions that you are right and they are wrong and vice versa
You're the guy that can't reply to anything said so you have to make shit up every time.
I explicitly didn't presuppose any sect was right. You're so fricked in the head, that out of all the posts that's the post you decided to reply to with the claim that I'm presupposing some Christian sect has unlocked all truths.
>Sure. It can reject that there are men and truths. All input is just noise signifying nothing.
Can it though? How do you know this?
I don't know if it can in practice but logically it can.
Then why don't you ask it? It appears that you are trying to ask these questions to the entity that you assume to be "me", but in the case that is being discussed, that entity doesn't exist.
> You're so fricked in the head, that out of all the posts that's the post you decided to reply to with the claim that I'm presupposing some Christian sect has unlocked all truths.
I'm making the point because it's these arguments are usually trotted out by Christians who'll try to use it to dab on atheists but then will start trying to argue the logic of their sect of preference, when by their own logic you can't actually argue any theistic or atheistic position since it's all based on individual presuppositions. Presuppositionalism doesn't actually help theists, it just purely creates an impasse to avoid having to concede to logic.
>when by their own logic you can't actually argue any theistic or atheistic position since it's all based on individual presuppositions
That's not the presented logic as far as classical monotheism goes. Atheism is objectively moronic, that does not mean x religious sect has all the answers about the universe.
How can you say atheism is objectively moronic when you've already admitted everything is based on presupposition? How is the atheist presupposition more moronic than the monotheist presupposition?
Because if you ARE going to assume logic, it logically follows that logic needs a justification, which atheists refuse to acknowledge.
The only thing you need to assume for logic is to assume that logic exists. That's it. This doesn't help you prove god in any way.
You're assuming universal law. You trust logic works everywhere. Even in a foreign land ruled by foreign spirits causality plays out the same and understanding of logic guides you to victory against the local gods.
If all there is are physical things how do physical things have access to the same universal law? Is the law communicated by radio waves?
>they just do
Such intellectual curiosity.
This assumes I'm saying I know all logic, obviously I'm willing to admit I don't, unlike theists who insist they have universal truth.
>This assumes I'm saying I know all logic
No. Why do you just say random shit like this? You're assuming logic is universal when you use it in a different context and place from before, we predicted golf would work on the moon based on trust in the idea of universal law.
The religious assume ultimate truth, hence why they compel conversion. If they didn't they wouldn't compel conversion as they'd be open to the possibility of being wrong.
Appeals to associative conditioning. It's exactly as dishonest as if I start arguing based on the premise that atheists are murderers. You have no self-awareness and will repeat all the moronic mistakes religious people made in the past while making fun of them.
>the principle is the same
Nothing I said is even slightly similar to an appeal to a made up fairy. You just can't think so you reach into the bag of pathetic memes.
>you choose god over the logic is a brute fact option
It's not a choice. You're calling the phenomena we're attempting to describe fundamental and irreducible which is the exact same point the classical monotheists made, it's the same appeal to the unknowable mind of God only dressed up in newer language.
One source means fundamentals are reducible to the same phenomena, which is a simpler model than bringing in new fundamentals every time.
if you don't believe you have ultimate truth that just makes you an agnostic.
>the church fathers were agnostics because they said they didn't know the mind of God
There is no creature lower than the "atheist". It's the most clownish existence imaginable, a parody of a parody of a human.
The fact that you insist god exists and he talks to you through the bible means you believe you have ultimate truth. By ultimate truth I of course do not mean omniscience, but that you can assert that god existing is an indisputable fact.
>Same as literally everything else
This doesn't help the theist point of view at all and really just hurts it. At absolute best it puts you level with atheists.
>The basis isn't in logic
Clearly most of the religious disagree otherwise they wouldn't conduct missionary campaigns.
>Even if you presuppose logic, logic still demands justifications.
You have to have some presupposition of logic otherwise you just end up with an infinite regress of justifications.
>This doesn't help the theist point of view at all and really just hurts it. At absolute best it puts you level with atheists.
That's been my point this entire time
>Clearly most of the religious disagree otherwise they wouldn't conduct missionary campaigns.
Go talk to any missionary and watch the tactics they use to try to convert you. They'll answer questions and reason through things but ultimately the appeal for most people is going to ultimately emotional even if they don't admit it.
>You have to have some presupposition of logic otherwise you just end up with an infinite regress of justifications.
That's why we arbitrate God as a valid circularity. It's logically consistent, not logically justified.
I honestly can't even tell if you're a theist at this point because your arguments ultimately just make theism hollow in nature. That it just boils down to feelings, which essentially means it has no real value as nothing about it can be substantiated one way or the other.
>your arguments ultimately just make theism hollow in nature
What is your criteria for something having substance?
My problem is all you've done is made everything totally arbitrary if you don't presuppose logic. Which you can, but it doesn't actually help theists as they are also trapped with the reality that their religion is also arbitrary and baseless, rendering its structure essentially worthless.
That's why you can't derive "worth" from logic. Sorry bro but I didn't make the world this way.
Well by your logic you can derive worth from anything, or even that nothing actually has worth. All you've really done is argued for nihilism.
Well if you don't want nihilism you're not going to be able to argue anything else logically, so you have to appeal to something else.
>and he talks to you
You have to make up additional claims, you can never argue honestly about what's said. Are you physically incapable?
>I'll give you the framework
>THE framework
Your dishonest framing is not THE framework.
I'll give you THE framework. A group of people woke up in a room with no knowledge of anything outside it. Some people sometimes talk about the abstract idea of the ultimate cause of this situation. When this idea is mentioned a few morons like you start yelling that things just are the way the are and nobody can prove anything about the outside of the room.
>specifically a personal entity, let's be real here
Further claims about the entity are separate and the classical theists make that very clear, like any honest thinker would but for some reason is beyond you.
>I am saying that this isn't necessarily true
The "alternative" you presented is that things just are. It's not even an alternative, it says less than nothing, things just are either way. The only meaning behind it is "don't think".
>the belief being necessary
To describe the phenomena of logic systematically like we describe everything else the description is missing an element. Normally that would be reason enough to assume the element is there but not in this case because ricky gervais..
>Some people sometimes talk about the abstract idea of the ultimate cause of this situation
lol thats not what theists do, if they were simply proposing that god was one hypothetical possibility no one would take issue. Theists in reality make an absolute claim that God does exist.
>The "alternative" you presented is that things just are.
Even if you accept God, things still "just are", because you still have to accept God "just is".
Exodus 3:14
God just is, not the things
God is a thing that just is.
yes
So how is that any better than saying things just are?
If you adopt Christian epistemology its better, if you don't its equal. I'm just pointing out that Christians already acknowledge that God just is.
>If you adopt Christian epistemology its better
Can you give a good reason for people to do that other than because you want that to be the case?
>I'm just pointing out that Christians already acknowledge that God just is.
Okay, but that doesn't help you when you come into other disagreements. It just shows that Christian presuppositions are no better than atheistic ones, so you have no basis asserting that atheists are morons.
I didn't assert that atheists are morons. Earlier I acknowledged that they are on average higher IQ, higher income, better health actually. If you're accepting the normative presuppositions of reality then you can see that they are typically better users of reasoning. My point is that if you ever want to make a value judgement, you'll have to use something disconnected from logic to justify it.
>Can you give a good reason for people to do that other than because you want that to be the case?
I think a better reason would be the other person wanting it be the case, but in your world that's not "better" because everything is equally meaningless.
Asserting certain things are true because you want them to be the case isn't a justification.
It's not a logical justification, but you can't logically justify anything except pic related
That's only true if the only way you derive meaning is through logic
>just believe what makes you happy!
Okay lol. So much for the famous theistic epistemology.
and where does atheism get you?
Well I hope i've demonstrated that that isn't my position
>Well I hope i've demonstrated that that isn't my position
It's pretty much exactly what you demonstrated, you said that youre beliefs are essentially just based on your subjective feelings, which no one else can confirm or interact with and that reality is essentially subjective to whatever presuppositions you have.
>and where does atheism get you?
Atheists can choose to believe random crap just because it makes them feel good too if they're so inclined.
>That's only true if the only way you derive meaning is through logic
It's true no matter what, if we accept your point of view then meaning is simply subjective and thus there is no inherent meaning. Which is funny as thats usually what people accuse atheists of saying.
>but in your world that's not "better" because everything is equally meaningless.
Well not my world, I'm not the one arguing for the presuppositionalist point of view. I'm simply saying that if you accept the presuppositionalist view to its conclusion then everything is ultimately meaningless as all views are equally valid depending on an individual presuppositions.
>Theists in reality
There are theists talking to you and referencing historical theists you can read. Instead of basing what you say on what they say you base it on "theists in reality", referring to people in your mind.
>in reality make an absolute claim that God does exist.
I am making the absolute claim that God exists. I know it with more certainty than I can know anything but that's separate from further claims about God.
I know there's more than the room with as much certainty as I can know anything. Can we as a species get back on track talking about what's outside the room instead of this autism?
>Even if you accept God, things still "just are", because you still have to accept God "just is".
It's the only thing that just is (I AM), everything else is contingent on what is fundamental, there's no reason to assume anything else is fundamental since it can all be contingent like everything describable is.
>I know it with more certainty than I can know anything but that's separate from further claims about God.
Cool, can you demonstrate that? No? It's all presuppositions? Can you show your presuppositions and more valid than someone who says they know god doesn't exist with certainty?
>It's the only thing that just is
Based on what?
>It's all presuppositions
"I think therefore I am" except all those words are advanced and contingent concepts including "I" but it communicates the basic drift of the idea of how to begin to reason.
There is something, I don't have the power to produce this something and the rules of logic I observe can't produce themselves. That means there's something outside the room.
I know this with more certainty than that there is an "I" but you have no problem if I say I'm certain I exist.
>"I think therefore I am"
But we're not allowed to use that since you can't define what I is.
>There is something
Cool, that literally just means there is something.
>I don't have the power to produce this something and the rules of logic I observe can't produce themselves.
You don't know the rules of logic have to be produced. They could feasibly simply exist in and of their own right.
>you have no problem if I say I'm certain I exist.
Well no YOU have no problem saying YOU exist as you are your fundamentally furthest point back. You cannot experience anything beyond yourself.
>But we're not allowed to use that since you can't define what I is.
The post explicitly and clearly spoonfeeds you this autism to try to stop you from doing it but you still do.
>You don't know the rules of logic have to be produced.
I don't know for sure anything obeys logical causality but that's what all models of everything are based on. Anything that can be described relies on logical causality. So either we can talk and reason about a thing at all or we can't, assuming we can't means you will never find anything out either way.
>They could feasibly simply exist in and of their own right.
Which is just as supernatural and unreasonable as any other model except with the bonus of precluding any further thought and offering no ideas to explore.
>YOU
There are a million unreasoned, purely conditioned assumptions in there.
The self is an advanced contingent concept, the fundamental element of experience could be a universal and shared phenomena and there would be no difference in how we perceive the moment.
"It's fun to think about this stuff" isn't an epistemic justification.
"Maybe stuff just is" isn't either. The difference is one attitude is fruitful and the other isn't. One has a possibility of finding or at least slowly approaching truth while your way from the start has no chance of ever finding anything out.
"Maybe stuff just is" isn't proposed as an epistemic justification in the first place. Meanwhile the god proposition is presented by theists both as true (as opposed to as possible) and as an epistemic justification.
Not taking the existence of god to be a fact doesn't preclude you from studying theology.
>isn't proposed as an epistemic justification in the first place
You did. I presented a model for a phenomena. As a counter you presented the idea of not bothering to try to model it or in other words you presented the model that the phenomena "just is" which is in fact an "epistemic" account of the phenomena. You try to hide this promotion of braindeath behind jerking off about the word epistemology. You invoke these phrases from philosophy thinking you can use them to dishonestly frame the discussion like when you started ranting about beans and fairies. They just demonstrate the point that you don't think. Your mind operates purely on conditioned associations, you can't even change up the language because you're not translating actual thought into language, just regurgitating phrases.
Sure I can change the language. I was using philosophical language for the sake of precision, but since you don't understand it anyway, I can use less precise terms.
There is a difference between one thing justifying our belief in another thing and one thing causing another thing. I am saying that there are several options of how a thing is caused. Picking one option because we like it or because it's more interesting doesn't actually justify our belief in the consequences of this option.
You can study one option, you can even arrive at some insight of what things would be like IF this option were true, but all this study will never show that the option itself is the true one unless you can disprove the other options.
I was giving you way too much benefit of the doubt just for mentioning philosophical terms. You are so fricking moronic it hurts. After all this shit you think this post is clarifying anything. This is worse than the fairy shit.
>There are several options of how a thing is caused
Give an option for how we can account for logic. So far the only option presented in this entire thread is God, the other option is not trying.
>Picking one option because we like it or because it's more interesting doesn't actually justify our belief in the consequences of this option.
Picking the option of actually thinking is infinitely more likely to lead to approaching truth than picking the option of not thinking. This is the precise math for how much better my model is compared to yours, exactly infinitely better.
You pouting and saying that you don't like brute facts doesn't mean brute facts are impossible. At this point you're basically just throwing a tantrum and saying that you'd like the laws of logic to exist in one particular way because the alternative offends your aesthetic sensibilities.
>Which is just as supernatural and unreasonable as any other model
Yes you're getting there, the contention with theists was never the suggestion of the possibility, it's that most theists assert it is the ONLY possible truth and that they know what that truth is. As I said, if God was merely proposed as a hypothetical possibility no one would be bothered by the notion.
>Yes you're getting there
If you're interested in critically examining your behaviour and how delusional you are, think about how many posts ago I first said this.
>it's that most theists assert it is the ONLY possible truth
I know God exists with more certainty than I know "I" exist. You can't separate this claim from further baggage you associate with the concept. That's what makes atheists objectively wrong, moronic and completely unaware of history.
I don't know the mind of God. I can't use this knowledge that God exists to tell you God told me he hates your pants. To argue theologically against your pants with an appeal to God I might say your pants don't align with the creative principle that God implies through the act of creation. Over time these kinds of arguments build up, if you accept this first set of arguments another set of arguments built on those conclusions follow etc. There are errors in thought and errors in our interpretations but at least there's a process of approaching truth and God happening.
>I know God exists
You haven't demonstrated this.
Perception is happening but not perception of anything that has the power to produce all this and the rules of logic observed say they can't produce themselves. That means there's necessarily something "outside the room". It does not mean our ideas of self necessarily reflect reality.
You haven't really explained why the rules of logic, or at the very least the framework they exist in, can't just be without the need for a personal creator. You don't need something outside the room, you just need the room to exist.
>can't just be
I said many times they can. The rules of logic on Jupiter may be different, the possibility is not reason enough to stop sending probes that assume the same rules we always have.
>personal
Additional claims you can't avoid adding. It suggests you really don't know how to think since it doesn't occur to you how self-sabotaging this kind of shit is.
>you just need the room to exist.
All the things in the room are contingent on other things. None of them are capable of producing rooms. If you point at one of the things or the room itself and say it's fundamental then it's aspects of the thing we don't have access to that are fundamental since all the parts we see are contingent. That's the same as saying there's something outside the room.
>Additional claims you can't avoid adding.
By nature of talking about God we're inherently talking about a personal being.
>None of them are capable of producing rooms.
The room could just be, the only assumption that things existing rest on is that there is something for them to exist in.
>By nature of talking about God we're inherently talking about a personal being.
No we're inherently talking about the concept of the highest power and the ultimate cause whatever that may be. The classical theists don't conflate these claims, you do. Who's the dishonest one? Might it perchance be the historically illiterate subversive little homosexual trying to undermine understanding of logic and history?
Power implies personality.
>All the things in the room are contingent on other things.
You haven't proven this, you've only repeatedly asserted this. The incompleteness theorems have to do with proof, not with existence.
>You haven't proven this
Models are not what they model or ever full accounts but these logical models are the only way to say anything about anything or describe anything. You don't undermine the project of understanding this way when it comes to any other subject. The theory of gravity does not reflect fully the real phenomena so your arguments apply. Gravity just is and any description is inherently wrong so don't try.
Why do you say shit like this? You just say random shit about subjects you haven't even glanced at as if you have any clue.
>doesn't mean brute facts are impossible
Not in a single post did any of you braindead homosexuals sincerely engage with anything I said. Not one single post signifying a literate atheist. I thought you might be engaging for a moment but you proved me wrong, there was never even a hint of thought going on.
Did I say they were impossible? Why not reply to what I actually say?
>Models are not what they model or ever full accounts but these logical models are the only way to say anything about anything or describe anything.
There is no logical rule saying that all phenomena need to be fully modelable. I have no problem with people exploring the god option, but the fact that it's more interesting doesn't mean that it's true.
When people talk about a "higher power" they're talking about a thinking personal being, not just an impersonal framework.
>Not in a single post did any of you braindead homosexuals sincerely engage with anything I said. Not one single post signifying a literate atheist.
There's nothing to engage with, this entire thread has been nothing but Christians posting pure sophistry and then coping when they essentially score own goals.
>Did I say they were impossible? Why not reply to what I actually say?
If they are not impossible, then how do you know god exists?
If you can't even know you exist how could you know god exists?
>Your dishonest framing is not THE framework.
Instead of getting mightily upset, you could've approached this constructively. The framework is laid out so that you can even slot other propositions into it.
So just to be clear - do you disagree with the framework itself, or are you saying that you're justified in believing A over B?
>Nothing I said is even slightly similar to an appeal to a made up fairy. You just can't think so you reach into the bag of pathetic memes.
I'll give you the framework, maybe that will make it more clear.
There is a fact of the matter X (classical logic/even number of beans). There are two possible ontological grounds - A (god instantiates logic/fairy makes the number of beans even) and B (logic is a brute fact/the number of beans just is even). Both A and B could serve as an ontological grounding for fact X, but while A can serve as an epistemic justification for believing fact X, B cannot. Unless we can justify our belief in A over B, our belief in A cannot act as an epistemic justifier for believing fact X even if fact X really is ontologically grounded in A.
>It's not a choice. You're calling the phenomena we're attempting to describe fundamental and irreducible which is the exact same point the classical monotheists made, it's the same appeal to the unknowable mind of God only dressed up in newer language.
That's demonstrably untrue. Classical monotheist are claiming that X is ontologically grounded in some further entity (specifically a personal entity, let's be real here) while I am saying that this isn't necessarily true.
>One source means fundamentals are reducible to the same phenomena, which is a simpler model than bringing in new fundamentals every time.
It's debatable whether it's simpler, but the fact of the matter is that argument via parsimony is at odds with the presuppositional claim about the belief being necessary.
>when you've already admitted everything is based on presupposition?
Because yet again, what you're saying does not relate to anything I said. You have to make shit up.
>How is the atheist presupposition more moronic than the monotheist presupposition?
We wake up and don't know how we got here. Someone talks abstractly about the "ultimate cause" for how we got here and one moron starts sperging about how he knows this abstract cause doesn't exist. Not just that we can't know it's nature, he says he knows it's nature and it never existed. Every time someone tries to talk about the subject in any way this moron just starts yelling about how sure he is.
That guy is the dumbest thing that has ever existed.
This only seems to be an argument against gnostic atheism, not agnostic atheism. The only actual assumption you have to make for logic is that there is an underlying reality that logic exists within. There is absolutely no reason to compel the belief that that underlying reality has to be a personal being like theists insist.
Why is that better than just supposing that God exists? Logic implies causes and explanations for things, God does not
That's why we don't consider people who aren't presupposing God and the Bible to be Christian. We are arguing within the common presuppositions. I wouldn't argue with a wiccan about which magic stones are the best for divination because I don't believe in that anyways.
>Why is that better than just supposing that God exists?
It isn't inherently, but is simpler and doesn't require explaining why the cause had to be personal. Theists are the ones who have to prove that the first cause HAD to be personal, I only have to suggest there's no reason to believe it had to.
>We are arguing within the common presuppositions.
You're not arguing in common presuppositions, or at least not all of your presuppositions are common. This is why interfaith disagreement is irreconcilable as the things being disagreed upon come via different presuppositions. Thus there's no way to argue one is more valid than the other.
If I say "God real" then that's even simpler.
>You're not arguing in common presuppositions
Not always, but some people will change their presuppositions once they are aware of them, and then we can argue within the scope of our common ones.
>Not always
That fact that it is a possibility at all already puts a big hole in the idea of monotheism being a superior assumptions. It clearly only works in so far as everyone agrees on the presuppositions, which yeah no shit sherlock that goes for literally anything. However the minute two Christians come to have different presuppositions it becomes fundamentally impossible to resolve any disagreement as neither can ever prove the other is wrong due to fundamentally assuming differently.
>If I say "God real" then that's even simpler.
Not really no, personality adds an extra assumption onto it, so it's fundamentally more assumptions than assuming the impersonal.
>However the minute two Christians come to have different presuppositions it becomes fundamentally impossible to resolve any disagreement as neither can ever prove the other is wrong due to fundamentally assuming differently
Are you saying that it's impossible to change your presuppositions simply because it's not logical?
>personality adds an extra assumption onto it, so it's fundamentally more assumptions than assuming the impersonal
What is it about circular simplicity that's better than another layer of complexity?
>Are you saying that it's impossible to change your presuppositions simply because it's not logical?
This isn't really relevant, the fact that someone can change them doesn't help solve that problem, as you have no basis to compel them to change them, and thus no recourse to rectify whether one is more true than the other.
Your statement essentially just boils down to "if someone agreed with me theyd agree with me", with yeah no shit, but doesn't solve the fundamental issue.
>What is it about circular simplicity that's better than another layer of complexity?
Less assumptions. It doesn't prove it's better, but theres no real logical argument one can make to insist that the assumption of personality must be made.
It's totally relevant, and it does solve the problem for people. The basis is not logical, it's emotional and spiritual.
>Less assumptions. It doesn't prove it's better, but theres no real logical argument one can make to insist that the assumption of personality must be made.
Actually, when you make the illogical move of presupposing logic, you're undermining the consistency of logic. If you assume something made logic, that's logically consistent.
>The basis is not logical, it's emotional and spiritual.
Except this doesn't resolve how multiple people, who call claim to be emotional and spiritual, can come to completely different conclusions. This essentially means religion is arbitrary with no real basis to it other than the persons presuppositions. This of course is very bad for you if you're a proselytising religion as it means you have no basis to assert your religion above others.
>Actually, when you make the illogical move of presupposing logic
You have to presuppose logic to get logic by your own admission of basing your beliefs on presupposition. If you want to go down the presuppositional route you have to ultimately accept that everything is subjective and relative to individual presupposition and that if you disagree on a presupposition there is absolutely no way to prove one presupposition is more valid than the other.
The basis isn't in logic
>This essentially means religion is arbitrary
Same as literally everything else
>This of course is very bad for you if you're a proselytising religion as it means you have no basis to assert your religion above others
The basis isn't in logic
>You have to presuppose logic to get logic
Even if you presuppose logic, logic still demands justifications. Giving a justification for logic is internally consistent in logic than not giving any justification.
>Are you saying that brute facts are impossible?
Appealing to such a thing is abandoning reason, "just because" is not a reason.
>What are you referring to?
"Brute facts" as an alternative explanation.
>Logic says that logic cannot be a brute fact?
A description of logic needs an appeal to elements outside logic, which an appeal to brute facts is. A logical description of a system with any such thing as brute facts rests on some external thing that supplies these brutal facts that appear fundamental in our system.
>Appealing to such a thing is abandoning reason, "just because" is not a reason.
I don't think you're acting on good faith. I explicitly spelled out that I'm talking about the possibility of a brute fact.
>"Brute facts" as an alternative explanation.
The existence of brute facts isn't contradicted by classical logic.
>A description of logic needs an appeal to elements outside logic, which an appeal to brute facts is. A logical description of a system with any such thing as brute facts rests on some external thing that supplies these brutal facts that appear fundamental in our system.
Once again, I am talking about the ontology of logic. I never argued that brute facts can provide an epistemic justification of logic.
My argument is that your attempt at epistemic justification of logic relies on logic not being, ontologically speaking, a brute fact, and you have no justification for this assumption.
>your attempt at epistemic justification of logic relies on logic not being, ontologically speaking, a brute fact
The appeal to brute fact is an appeal to something we can't describe using logic which agrees with the original point and the apologists. Logic points at something beyond logic, a source of "brute facts".
At this point I think you just don't know what a brute fact is. Maybe try consulting philosophical literature?
Why not elaborate what you mean if there's confusion you useless piece of shit? It's a fundamental. Something that can't be accounted for in other terms.
It's not some super sekrit special philosophy club card you can pull out to get away with avoiding thinking.
I've been elaborating over and over, but you still don't get it. "Brute fact" refers to the ontology of the thing, not to its descriptions (epistemology). It is explicitly defined as something that has no further ontological grounding.
And for the last time, I am not saying that logic is a brute fact. I am saying that it may be a brute fact, and that this mere possibility completely tanks your argument.
>It is explicitly defined as something that has no further ontological grounding.
You apparently can't relate concept to reality. When I talk about the actual meaning you go completely blank.
Summed up what you're saying is:
>maybe it just is
Okay sure, maybe. Thanks moron.
>You apparently can't relate concept to reality. When I talk about the actual meaning you go completely blank.
No, you just keep confusing ontology with epistemology and then get really upset when I point it out. I hope you finally got it though.
>maybe it just is
What would be your justification for rejecting this possibility?
>What would be your justification for rejecting this possibility?
I never did, explicitly told you it's a possibility many times including in this post you're replying to. It doesn't lead anywhere so it definitely doesn't lead anywhere interesting or insightful.
You'll make fun of religious people for dogmatic thinking and then whip out "brute facts" as a counter-explanation to some presented model. It's the height of braindeath.
If you can't refute the possibility of logic being a brute fact, then you cannot justify your model of justification.
Imagine you're presented with a jar of beans and asked whether there's an even or odd number. You want to say there's an odd number of beans, but how do you justify it? What you come up with is that there's a fairy who really wanted the number of beans to be odd. If this fairy really exists, you are epistemically justified in thinking the number is odd!
But are you really? Obviously not. Even if the fairy exists you were never justified in your thinking because the belief in the fairy itself wasn't justified.
And that's exactly your situation, and why the alternative proposition (there is no fairy, logic is a brute fact) nukes your position.
>Logic demands something beyond logic to be described.
It doesn't
I'm not trying to convert atheists, I want them to leave theists alone
You don't "need" to do anything at all
>You don't "need" to do anything at all
No I'm saying that the reason for the existence of logic has no bearing on the fact that you don't presuppose for it to be true
>Because people are most likely to be converted by emotional appeals, not reasoning
Yeah because Christians are a dumber, fatter, and poorer variety of person, and with that comes a lack of emotional control.
Your kind are objectively provably less logical. You are less in touch with logic than secular men.
Because you can't choose logic, there is no initial supposition the mind uses it instinctively
>I shot you first
How do you know this isn't just what you believe because I hit you over the head with a pipe?
Catholics and orthodox are even lower in intelligence than mainline Protestants. Catholics are counted in religious in all of these studies.
Christians are literally less capable of logical reasoning than non-religious people.
To claim monopoly on logic is a riot.
You’re dumber, fatter and poorer.
>To claim monopoly on logic
Not claimed by anyone in the thread. You morons always have to make up shit instead of engaging.
Depends on the crowd. In the US population if you test by religion Anglicans have the highest IQ but this is a moronic endeavour from the start. The religious groups with lower numbers of people all have higher IQ than the huge groups that represent the average, like atheists.
You're just talking about your moronic environment where everyone is as moronic as you, religious or not.
>The religious groups with lower numbers of people all have higher IQ than the huge groups that represent the average, like atheists.
Christians as a group score lower on intelligence assessments than secular people. In fact one of their primary flaws is NOT using logic for analytical logic tests and getting the wrong answers because they rely on intuition over logic even when logic should be used.
Your kind are objectively less capable of logic.
>In fact one of their primary flaws
What are you talking about? Your moronic cousins?
When someone pointed out that if you act based on logic you are trusting logic you replied with the dumbest shit imaginable about IQ tests. You did that, your moronic Christian cousin you imagine every time anyone mentions anything slightly related to theology didn't do that. You can't blame him for your moronation.
Historically it is. Formal logic was developed based on what we now call mythology.
Dishonest and incoherent, the power of reddit. The most intelligent and healthiest groups are Christian. This is also not related to anything I was talking about. Coherence, a requirement for logic seems completely alien to you.
>The most intelligent and healthiest groups are Christian.
Christians factually score lower on intelligence tests. This has been established nearly if not over 100 times in experiments over the past 100 years.
Your kind are literally less capable of using logic.
You don't understand anything about anything. You're talking about basic statistics like it's voodoo and can't grasp the factual point I made.
It’s not voodoo, it’s cold hard facts that if you pick a Christian out of a crowd they are likely going to fail a logic test when pit against a non-religious guy.
>The most intelligent and healthiest groups are Christian.
>most christians are african
>intelligent and healthy
Logic isn't my claim,moron
>Anyone who uses logic and reason is better justified to believe in God than not to
I used my reasoning as a Christian to realize the Christian god is a mythological character of the Iron Age and not actually real.
So we could all be imagining things, what’s your point
Where in the Bible does it say none of your memories are false?
What other system are you comparing this to? There is no system of knowing anything that lets you put 100% confidence in your senses.
>how do you know that?
I don't need to know that, I have no alternative
>God isn‘t a israelite, in the the sky, or invisible
How do you know that?
the only alternative is solipsism
You don't need to have any such conviction. Either your mind and senses are working correctly or they're not. If they are, that's good. If they're not, you're shit out of luck anyway and there's no reason to dwell on it.
Kant solved this in the 18th century, it doesn't matter if it is ultimately true it just needs to be coherent, which it is
>bro, like, how do we know anything, bro? maybe nothing is real, you ever think about that bro?
That's not what I'm saying, only those who overemphasize reason over our other tools can say that. Whereas normal people know that you can have knowledge of something without seeing it through faith, or that you can directly grasp at it with intuition.
What does that have to do with materialists?
>you can have knowledge of something without seeing it through faith
You don't need to have faith to know about plate tectonics.
We have been told that our greatest gifts are Faith, Hope, and Love.
Meant to reply to
The other guy is just directing the conversation backwards.
*only the co®®ect kinds of faith™, hope™ and love©
Plate tectonics is a MODEL.
>Duuude, maybe we are all just, don't know one big brain in a jar tripping balls hallucinating being a ton of people
>There's no way to know dude, or don't know, maybe we are all on the matrix duuuude that was a great film
Faith is not a virtue.
*only the correct® faith©™
It's fundamental to knowing.
Peoples' ability to reason can be tested, compared and proven.
>empiricists when you ask them to empirically prove that empiricism is the only valid source of knowledge
>relativists when you ask them if relativism is just another relative proposition
>skeptics when you ask them if we should be skeptical of skepticism
>agnostics when you ask them how they know that nothing can be known
Does the invisible israelite in the sky require faith in his ability to reason?
>I CAN'T DO GOOD THINGS OR THINK GOOD THOUGHTS UNLESS UNDER THREAT OF A RED SKINNED GOAT MAN LIGHTING ME ON FIRE FOR ALL ETERNITIY
>I CAN'T REASON OR THINK WITHOUT A MAGIC israelite LETTING ME!
These people are genuinely sociopaths. I cannot be convinced otherwise.
>These people are genuinely sociopaths.
They literally are, most of them talk and think like David Wood.
>assuming that I have the ability to reason
>you can't prove you aren't a brain in a jar hallucinating the outside world, therefore you need to kill gays and trannies on behalf of an ancient Hebrew storm god
it's all so tiresome
>btfos presuppositionalism
heh
Me preparing my arguments against presupps.
>btfos your pipe
Less technologically demanding arguments are fine too.
Anyone else need a pipe? There's enough to go around.
>this whole thread
lol
Wanna join?
Atheists are like
>I'm a free thinker! I don't get my worldview from some insitution like those silly Christians!
even though their whole worldview is 19th century Freemason propaganda
>19th century freemasons >:(
>iron age superstitions 😮
>everyone I dont like is a freemason
If life isn't material why can't i exit life when i know it isn't material.
>Christians want me to think I can’t know anything
>they then want me to jump to believing ancient mythology
Hmmmm. Nope. Can’t help ya
want me to think I can’t know anything
That isn't the argument. This just shows a severe misunderstanding of presuppositionalism or TAG on your part.
Any reason requires faith. Philosophy is a profession of faith of ones self.
If anything, it proves that faith so too is material, its something that exists
Karl Marx is dead.
Jesus Christ conquered death and rose again and is very much alive!
This does not negate my argument.
Karl Marx was a Satanist who rejected Christ and wrote poems to the devil.
Ok schizo
In his book Nihilism: The Root of the Revolution, Fr. Seraphim Rose addresses the worldview of scientism and how it doesn't work.
>christians when you question the most minor facet of their faith.
I love pre-suppositionalism as it ultimately fricks Christians as much as it fricks atheists. For example a Christian presuppositionalist can never prove that say, Catholicism is more valid than the Jehovah's Witnesses, as both are based on their own presuppositions, leaving you in what is essentially an eternal impasse.
It's literally just a debate bro tactic to avoid giving any ground to your opponent
It's called classical monotheism. After you establish the basics which all the men that developed logic agreed on you move on to debating what God is. Is this beyond you? You apparently can't even parody these ancient ideas.
Debate what? Your philosophy is based on presuppositions, there's nothing to argue about. The Jehovahs Witness presupposed he is right and you are wrong, you presuppose you are right and he is wrong. There's no debate to be had.
>The Jehovahs Witness presupposed he is right and you are wrong, you presuppose you are right and he is wrong. There's no debate to be had.
This does not represent the history of monotheism. You have no interest in understanding history on any level and think it's your duty to make sure nobody else does either?
>This does not represent the history of monotheism.
It does and is what the argument boils down to. What can you possibly argue if it's all based on your own presuppositions? You're just making presuppositions that you are right and they are wrong and vice versa. But of course you'll avoid this fact because it's inconvenient.
>If you can't refute the possibility
Why? Logic says there's more than can be described by logic. Your response is that I can't refute the possibility that logic just is, which means it can't be described by logic, which is what I said.
>muh fairy
So fricking predictable.
>What you come up with is that there's a fairy who really wanted the number of beans to be odd
What are you referencing that I said? Where's the equivalent of the fairy? Where's the fricking fairy you braindead vegetable?
>What are you referencing that I said? Where's the equivalent of the fairy? Where's the fricking fairy you braindead vegetable?
God. I get that this is really emotional for you, and perhaps I should've used a different example than the fairy, but the principle is the same. Even if the ontological justification (fairy, god) really exists, you weren't epistemically justified in your conclusions because you couldn't prove that the justifier really exists.
You choose the fairy over the no fairy option, you choose god over the logic is a brute fact option. You can't justify either of those, so the conclusion is equally unjustified in both cases.
Materialists when they have an idea:
woah wtf happened ITT
it is NOT common for an animu gril picture thread to hit 440 replies