Moving the discussion from the other thread to this new one, since it's gone way off topic from the OP of the original thread.
The Transcendental Argument for God
- Thread starter Clete
- Start date
Right Divider
Body part
Look in a mirror.
Nice try, you talk in circles.
Indeed, because God created us that way.
Nice try, you talk in circles.
Indeed, how did you?
You playing devil's advocate would pose far more of an intellectual challenge to me than the alternative but sadly, you're quite right, my post was intended to be aimed at Avajs.Judging from certain contextual clues, I think you may have accidentally replied to my post while meaning to reply to @Avajs.
...then, again, @Clete, maybe you did it deliberately, hoping perhaps to bait me into playing "devil's advocate" on behalf of @Avajs. But, observing through his posts the workings of the mind of @Avajs, it seems it would be more realistic to play "dust devil's advocate" for him.
Saying it doesn't make it so.
Do the brave thing and actually make an attempt to present a real actual argument instead of just making baseless statements like this. SHOW ME the circularity if you think it exists.
People who attempt to refute the argument I've made seem to always do this. The form yours has taken is particularly silly because you just one sentence earlier accused me of talking in circles!
Your, “I reason because I reason.” argument is so completely circular that is it literally a tautology!
You are presupposing a rational structure and calling it a brute fact. I am pointing out that such a structure cannot arise from chaos, cannot be explained by matter alone, and cannot be morally binding if it is the byproduct of chemical reactions.
You do not get to stand on the foundation and then pretend you built it. The question still stands. WHY does rationality exist at all? WHY does it bind us? WHY do you expect it to lead to truth?
You cannot explain any of that apart from a rational source!
Saying it doesn't make it so!
An effect cannot be great than its cause. Randomness does not produce meaning and the mindless does not produce reason. You cannot generate information greater than that already present in the source system without intelligent input. These are all various ways of saying the same thing and the principle that no effect can exceed the power, order, or rationality of its cause is foundational to science. As such, once again, YOU presuppose MY worldview by evoking what at least purports to be a scientific theory (i.e. evolution). If God does not exist, knowledge is impossible, including scientific knowledge. You concede the point by presenting an argument - any argument.
I explained explicitly how you did so and have done so again above. Copy/paste these posts into Chat GPT and ask it to dumb it down for you, if that's what it takes.
It is a famous argument, Avajs. I didn't come up with it myself. It's been around for at least 2000 years. If you think it's circular, you don't understand the argument. If you understand the argument and think that you can actually refute it, you're delusional. If you think you've even touched it in a five sentence post, you're insane.
Do you even understand what the word "presuppose" means?
What I provided was an argument showing that evidence cannot be recognized as evidence without presupposing the existence of God. Thinking itself, the very act of cognition, including the perceived need for, investigation and recognition of evidence is a series of actions that could not happen in a universe created by the random activity of mindless materials.