₦airaland Forum

If you as an atheist are nothing but particles bumping one onto other, deterministically or indeterministically, you should not be able to claim that you are reasonable.

I understand that for many atheists, atheism is no more than lacking belief in god.

But if there is no all-encompassing one being who transcends all, if there is no all encompassing truth who can empower other beings, if your concepts are just local, if your syllogisms are no more than epiphenomenal, what might be your basis for reason?

Some of you may be believing in spirits, or emergence, or ... I do not think any of these can be a basis for reason. But anyway, I would like to see on what basis you claim (if you do) to be acting on reason.

And I think that without an all-encompassing transcendent basis of knowledge and freedom you cannot have such a basis, hence you cannot claim to be behaving on reason.

I hope I did not offend anyone.

I just articulate my sincere thoughts. Maybe you will convince me that without god you may have what is necessary for reason.

Thanks in advance

This is an issue that existence of god doesn't fix. Even if we assume that there is some transcendent basis for reason, we have no good reason to believe that we have any sort of reliable access to it. People behave irrationally most of the time. That's something really hard to explain away, if we have some god-given capacity for reason.

Consider this simple syllogism:
P1: If god exists, reason is justified.
P2: God exists.
C: Therefore reason is justified.
It might seem like a valid syllogism, but it's actually not. In order to infer C from P1 and P2, you need to apply reason (specifically modus monens). Which you can't do (justifiably) unless you already have prior justification for reason. If you do have it, that defeats the purpose of the argument. The problem is not specific to god. You can substitute anything for "god" in that argument and you'll end up with the exact same issue. Even if one of those things is in fact what makes reason work, there's no rational basis to come to that conclusion. You can never really justify reason itself. Not by invoking god, spirits, epiphenomena or anything else. The least "damaging" position is to just presuppose it.

NnennaG6:
If you as an atheist are nothing but particles bumping one onto other, deterministically or indeterministically, you should not be able to claim that you are reasonable.

I understand that for many atheists, atheism is no more than lacking belief in god.

But if there is no all-encompassing one being who transcends all, if there is no all encompassing truth who can empower other beings, if your concepts are just local, if your syllogisms are no more than epiphenomenal, what might be your basis for reason?

Some of you may be believing in spirits, or emergence, or ... I do not think any of these can be a basis for reason. But anyway, I would like to see on what basis you claim (if you do) to be acting on reason.

And I think that without an all-encompassing transcendent basis of knowledge and freedom you cannot have such a basis, hence you cannot claim to be behaving on reason.

I hope I did not offend anyone.

I just articulate my sincere thoughts. Maybe you will convince me that without god you may have what is necessary for reason.

Thanks in advance

Don’t waste your time...??
Their strength lies only insulting your beliefs, God, and the human accounts of scriptures

JujuSugar:
This is an issue that existence of god doesn't fix. Even if we assume that there is some transcendent basis for reason, we have no good reason to believe that we have any sort of reliable access to it.

If you presume that you have no reasoning power, maybe. But since we make claims, and we transcend concepts in unity, there is good reason. Otherwise, you should not have posted anything at all. Or, you must be admitting that what you write has no truth value at all.

JujuSugar:
People behave irrationally most of the time

You should say "always" instead of most of the time. But, as I noted above, you should not even say that as something with any truth value.

JujuSugar:
It might seem like a valid syllogism, but it's actually not. In order to infer C from P1 and P2, you need to apply reason (specifically modus monens). Which you can't do (justifiably) unless you already have prior justification for reason. If you do have it, that defeats the purpose of the argument.

While you write these, you already assume that you have reason.

The syllogism must be revised as:

1. If there is reason, it has a transcendent, unitary, and coherent basis irreducible to particles bumping one onto another.

2. There is reason since we transcend and communicate in unity that which is true and that which is false and able to confirm or falsify the results of reason and truth.

3. Therefore there is the transcendent, unitary, and all-encompassing basis of reason.

JujuSugar:
The least "damaging" position is to just presuppose it.

You mean without reason?

NnennaG6:
If there is reason, it has a transcendent, unitary, and coherent basis irreducible to particles bumping one onto another.

Why? What is it about reduction to mechanistic particle movements that would make it inadequate as a basis? Why would reason need a transcendent unitary basis?

There is reason since we transcend and communicate in unity that which is true and that which is false and able to confirm or falsify the results of reason and truth.

This premise is simply false. Truth is undefinable. Whatever consistent formula/test for identifying true propositions you can come up with, you can always use Cantor's diagonalization to generate a true proposition that the formula/test will fail to identify as such. The only reason why truth seems transcendent and universal is because when two people meet in practice, their intuitive vague notion of truth is similar enough to communicate effectively. That does not actually require truth to be truly transcendent.

Here's how I avoid the issue:

Step 1. Replace classical definition of knowledge (true justified belief) with something that does not hang on ill-defined and/or anthropocentric concepts. For example, I use definition that is based on fields of game theory and artificial intelligence: Knowledge is information that gives an agent power (the ability to willingly choose) over the outcome of a nontrivial scenario.

It dodges the truth bullet, because information does not have inherent truth value. It doesn't arbitrarily limit knowledge and reason to human-like minds that hold beliefs. It defines knowledge based on its observable effects, instead of inherent qualities. And it captures the only aspect of knowledge that ultimately matters - power.

Step 2. Redefine reason. Reason is the ability/process of deriving knowledge from information. In other words, before you perform reasoning on given information, you have less power than after you perform the reasoning. It is validated by whether the resulting information actually constitutes knowledge. There is no one singular reason. Rather you can compare the "reasonability" of processes, based on the efficacy of results they produce. That does not require there to be some ultimate maximal reason (though it is not inconsistent with that notion). Under this model, truth is just a concept. A tool for manipulating information into knowledge. The ultimate arbiter of truth is the reality itself, or at least the part of it you occupy. You may notice, this model does not make any proclamations/assumptions about ontological or metaphysical nature of reality. It just defines concepts that you may (or may not) identify in reality.

I know this is a big bone to chew on. It approaches reason from a completely different direction than classical philosophy does. But then again... classical philosophy has been circlejerking on a treadmill for at least the last 200 years. Meanwhile other branches of philosophy (natural science, mathematics, computer science, humanities) are progressing in leaps and bounds.

[color=indigo]NnennaG6, are you trying to win people to Christ through argument? It won't work if that is the goal. Sure you know that. [/color]

Piptocoin:
[color=indigo]NnennaG6, are you trying to win people to Christ through argument? It won't work if that is the goal. Sure you know that. [/color]

I think she’s trying to use the baby steps approach...Get them to the idea of a creator first before even going near Jesus...

I always say it’s a waster of time...anyone who believes this world came to be by some random chance in the cosmos will require an encounter bigger than the Big Bang to make him or her believe.....

Everything that you typed still doesn't make sense if we don't have evidence for a god. No one will take all the fallacies in the Bible seriously if you can't back them up with evidence.

I'm not sure about a Deistic God but I'm very sure that the Christian description of a God is hoax. It doesnt exist

advanceDNA:
I think she’s trying to use the baby steps approach...Get them to the idea of a creator first before even going near Jesus...

I always say it’s a waster of time...anyone who believes this world came to be by some random chance in the cosmos will require an encounter bigger than the Big Bang to make him or her believe.....

The belief that this world came into existence by random chance is not science. This is a misinformed narrative peddled by scientific Ignoramuses who are bent on forcing their God on everyone without evidence.
Science doest know how universe eventually started, big bang only explained how it started from expanding from a singularity, we don't know the age of the singularity and we don't know how it got there. we are not going to be like religious people who always feel like they know everything but actually are hugely sciolists.

We will wait until we find out, filling the gaps with God will never happen in science.

advanceDNA:
I think she’s trying to use the baby steps approach...Get them to the idea of a creator first before even going near Jesus...

I always say it’s a waster of time...anyone who believes this world came to be by some random chance in the cosmos will require an encounter bigger than the Big Bang to make him or her believe.....

[color=indigo]it is great but then it takes the Spirit of God to convict them. this is why...Christ is always knocking on their hearts. it is left to them to open their heart or shut it tight. nevertheless, it is worth a try....[/color]

Workch:
The belief that this world came into existence by random chance is not science. This is a misinformed narrative peddled by scientific Ignoramuses who are bent on forcing their God on everyone without evidence.
Science doest know how universe eventually started, big bang only explained how it started from expanding from a singularity, we don't know the age of the singularity and we don't know how it got there. we are not going to be like religious people who always feel like they know everything but actually are hugely sciolists.

We will wait until we find out, filling the gaps with God will never happen in science.

[color=indigo]you would need a cryogenic chamber to extend your wait into another millennium or its half...hopefully, the myth of random creation should have been scientifically unraveled.[/color]

NnennaG6:
If you as an atheist are nothing but particles bumping one onto other, deterministically or indeterministically, you should not be able to claim that you are reasonable.

I understand that for many atheists, atheism is no more than lacking belief in god.

But if there is no all-encompassing one being who transcends all, if there is no all encompassing truth who can empower other beings, if your concepts are just local, if your syllogisms are no more than epiphenomenal, what might be your basis for reason?

Some of you may be believing in spirits, or emergence, or ... I do not think any of these can be a basis for reason. But anyway, I would like to see on what basis you claim (if you do) to be acting on reason.

And I think that without an all-encompassing transcendent basis of knowledge and freedom you cannot have such a basis, hence you cannot claim to be behaving on reason.

I hope I did not offend anyone.

I just articulate my sincere thoughts. Maybe you will convince me that without god you may have what is necessary for reason.

Thanks in advance

Why is a body and brain capable of experiencing the universe insufficient as a basis for reason? What is desirable about having someone else do your thinking for you?

LordReed:
Why is a body and brain capable of experiencing the universe insufficient as a basis for reason? What is desirable about having someone else do your thinking for you?

Legit.

Million dollars question..

NnennaG6:
If you as an atheist are nothing but particles bumping one onto other, deterministically or indeterministically, you should not be able to claim that you are reasonable.

Where did you get this information?

This entire old thread is about cosmic finetuning. Every atheist will die without ever knowing how it came to be and live in denial of the possibility that the beauty of the universe has a transcendent source that could be Jesus and this is completely okay.

skydancer:
This entire old thread is about cosmic finetuning. Every atheist will die without ever knowing how it came to be and live in denial of the possibility that the beauty of the universe has a transcendent source that could be Jesus and this is completely okay.

And what is your evidence that this source is Jesus?

skydancer:
This entire old thread is about cosmic finetuning. Every atheist will die without ever knowing how it came to be and live in denial of the possibility that the beauty of the universe has a transcendent source that could be Jesus and this is completely okay.

The problem is there is no difference between your claim and those of the ancient Greeks who believed in a different set of gods as being responsible or any of the thousands of beliefs out there. None of you have unequivocal evidence.

LordReed:
The problem is there is no difference between your claim and those of the ancient Greeks who believed in a different set of gods as being responsible or any of the thousands of beliefs out there. None of you have unequivocal evidence.

Seeing they do not see, hearing they do not hear. There's no problem at all here, just something you already know. The entire thread is about cosmic fine tuning and your lofty goal to nail down the transcendent entity behind it in the name of 'scientific' discovery is as elusive as a dream. You can imagine it but you can never hold it.

jaephoenix:
And what is your evidence that this source is Jesus?

What is your evidence that your name is your name? Because that's what your mama and papa called you abi?

God may go by a thousand names and even those thousand names may not be able to accurately describe Him (and rightly so because if it was possible, then it would not be God, yet there's one name above all names)

skydancer:
Seeing they do not see, hearing they do not hear. There's no problem at all here, just something you already know. The entire thread is about cosmic fine tuning and your lofty goal to nail down the transcendent entity behind it in the name of 'scientific' discovery is as elusive as a dream. You can imagine it but you can never hold it.

Bro, I totally agree! It is only an imagination in your head! I am so glad we agree.

skydancer:
What is your evidence that your name is your name? Because that's what your mama and papa called you abi?

God may go by a thousand names and even those thousand names may not be able to accurately describe Him (and rightly so because if it was possible, then it would not be God, yet there's one name above all names)

You have a way of weaving and dodging when asked a question. Again,what is your evidence your god is real? Using big words or sounding profound wont derail this thread

jaephoenix:
You have a way of weaving and dodging when asked a question. Again,what is your evidence your god is real? Using big words or sounding profound wont derail this thread

And you keep reading without understanding and keep asking the wrong questions. If you don't understand that your name is real yet your only evidence to it is a claim, or that you can dream but cannot prove your dream to anyone, what evidence or claim or explanation can you then have about a transcendent being who created the entire universe, it's such a silly ask once you see it.

skydancer:
And you keep reading without understanding and keep asking the wrong questions. If you don't understand that your name is real yet your only evidence to it is a claim, or that you can dream but cannot prove your dream to anyone, what evidence or claim or explanation can you then have about a transcendent being who created the entire universe, it's such a silly ask once you see it.

I have evidence of my name. There's a birth cert issued when i was born. There's witnesses to my naming ceremony. And people call me that name.
So provide evidence of your god creating the universe. Also,your claim can be echoed by many religions about their gods creating the universe, yet zero evidence

jaephoenix:
I have evidence of my name. There's a birth cert issued when i was born. There's witnesses to my naming ceremony. And people call me that name.
So provide evidence of your god creating the universe. Also,your claim can be echoed by many religions about their gods creating the universe, yet zero evidence

Lol, you're clearly not understanding. There's a difference between atheism, anti-theism and agnosticism. Speaking as if you're obsessed about my concept of the origin of the universe or how my description of the transcendent source is more accurate than others does not do you any service even in the worst case of being an antitheist. None of my comments is suggesting it's possible for a subset of beings that came from a much higher transcendent source to fully describe the source when they have troubles defining what is already in front of them. Some people grow up and reject the names their parents gave them - is that not the craziest thing? You reject something that is real (in your words that there's proof of)

skydancer:
Lol, you're clearly not understanding. There's a difference between atheism, anti-theism and agnosticism. Speaking as if you're obsessed about my concept of the origin of the universe or how my description of the transcendent source is more accurate than others does not do you any service even in the worst case of being an antitheist. None of my comments is suggesting it's possible for a subset of beings that came from a much higher transcendent source to fully describe the source when they have troubles defining what is already in front of them. Some people grow up and reject the names their parents gave them - is that not the craziest thing? You reject something that is real (in your words that there's proof of)

In all this waffling and faffing,you still haven't dropped a shred of evidence. No use arguing with you

jaephoenix:
In all this waffling and faffing,you still haven't dropped a shred of evidence. No use arguing with you

No use indeed, it's only out of compassion I respond to you. You're asking about 'shred' of evidence (how arrogant) when a few comments away you described a naming ceremony and birth certificate done with just a few witnesses (something that can be forged) as enough supporting evidence for your name; yet there's a catechism of the church approved and accepted by over a billion people worldwide (more than any single country in the world) with a single definition of God, and recorded lives of saints throughout history. If you can accept a birth stamp from a few people as evidence for your name, but cannot accept a similar token from a billion people, you have already judged yourself.

skydancer:
No use indeed, it's only out of compassion I respond to you. You're asking about 'shred' of evidence (how arrogant) when a few comments away you described a naming ceremony and birth certificate done with just a few witnesses (something that can be forged) as enough supporting evidence for your name; yet there's a catechism of the church approved and accepted by over a billion people worldwide (more than any single country in the world) with a single definition of God, and recorded lives of saints throughout history. If you can accept a birth stamp from a few people as evidence for your name, but cannot accept a similar token from a billion people, you have already judged yourself.

So a birth cert that is looking old and tattered,with a stamp and date of around when I was born,is a fake? So the pictures taken during my naming ceremony which is looking old and faded is a fake?
Using your analogy, Islam and Hindu are all legit religions since they have deep adherents billions in number who are all ready to swear (without a shred of evidence also) that their religions are legit
Be deceiving yourself