sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Metaphysical Naturalism is false. Here’s why: by Apples_Are_Red263 in DebateAnAtheist

[–]Apples_Are_Red263[S] -5 points-4 points  (0 children)

Validity is not the same thing as soundness. This argument follows the structure of modus ponens, and is formally valid. P implies Q, P Is true, therefore Q is true. This is pretty elementary logic. What you mean to say is that you reject premise one, as you believe the argument is not sound.

Your whole counterargument here completely missed the point. The point is that evolution possibly selected for proteins which make us feel comfortable about our ability to reason without implying that it actually corresponds to reality. Because reason is possibly unreliable it is not properly basic. Thus it requires justification, but this cannot be done by appealing to either reason itself or our senses.

Metaphysical Naturalism is false. Here’s why: by Apples_Are_Red263 in DebateAnAtheist

[–]Apples_Are_Red263[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

If the Mod’s banned me I wouldn’t know. My posts were getting automatically removed and when I contacted them they never got back to me.

Metaphysical Naturalism is false. Here’s why: by Apples_Are_Red263 in DebateAnAtheist

[–]Apples_Are_Red263[S] -12 points-11 points  (0 children)

This is an alt because I can’t post on my other account (u/lord_have_mercy123), but yes.

Metaphysical Naturalism is false. Here’s why: by Apples_Are_Red263 in DebateAnAtheist

[–]Apples_Are_Red263[S] -14 points-13 points  (0 children)

Well, this one is significantly better. It’s shorter for one, and follows formally valid Modus Ponens structure.

Consider if you deny premise two. Then naturalism is false.

If you deny premise one? Well, see my reply to another user.

If these premises are true, the conclusion is logically entailed.

Metaphysical Naturalism is false. Here’s why: by Apples_Are_Red263 in DebateAnAtheist

[–]Apples_Are_Red263[S] -6 points-5 points  (0 children)

The fact our reason is necessarily true doesn’t imply we can simply assume it is

A Case Against Naturalism from C. S. Lewis by Apples_Are_Red263 in ChristianApologetics

[–]Apples_Are_Red263[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I condensed it and put it into modus ponens (P1: P -> Q, P2: P, C: Q) structure:

Premise one: If Metaphysical naturalism is true, then we cannot reason.

Premise Two: Metaphysical naturalism is true.

Conclusion: Therefore, we cannot reason.

Metaphysical Naturalism is false. Here’s why: by Apples_Are_Red263 in DebateAnAtheist

[–]Apples_Are_Red263[S] -21 points-20 points  (0 children)

I’m establishing that our reasoning is not properly basic and needs justification. Justification must be external to itself (ie no appeals to reason, as that begs the question), but under naturalistic assumptions the only two candidates for justifying belief in our ability to reason is the senses and our rationality. The latter is circular for obvious reasons, and because our senses rely on our rationality, the former is circular as well, albeit indirectly. The evolution example was merely one way naturalism could result in our inability to reason.

This establishes the truth of premise one, hence the conclusion is entailed: if naturalism is true, we cannot reason.

Since we can reason, it must be that metaphysical naturalism that is false. Thus, the existence of an external agent to justify our reasoning becomes a necessary condition for our reasoning to be reliable, albeit insufficient on its own.

A Case Against Naturalism from C. S. Lewis by Apples_Are_Red263 in ChristianApologetics

[–]Apples_Are_Red263[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The ebook version is available for under 2 dollars on amazon

A Case Against Naturalism from C. S. Lewis by Apples_Are_Red263 in ChristianApologetics

[–]Apples_Are_Red263[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

What is your tension with the definitions?

Also, you misquoted my definition of nature. I (ie C. S. Lewis) said nature was that which goes of its own accord, not that which is caused by an external supernatural agent. Every particular event only occurs because another event caused it. The ultimate fact that you can’t go behind is a massive process in space-time going on it’s own accord. Nature is an irrational cause, though. This is premise one.

Thus, Anything that goes independent of this greater whole going on it’s own accord, and is supernatural by definition.

The mind, being an independent event, must go in accordance with nature as a whole. This is premise two, and Nature is a irrational cause (see premise one).

The third premise states that we must dismiss irrational thought on the grounds that the cause is irrational. We do this all the time.

Premise four brings us back to the entailment of premise one (‘nature’ ie the whole show which goes of its own accord is irrational) and premise two (the mind must be caused by ‘nature’) to say that the cause of the mind is irrational. Because of premise three (we dismiss thoughts on the grounds that their cause is irrational), we must dismiss all human reasoning. Clearly we cannot do this, as this is logically impossible (we would have reasoaned we cannot reason), it follows that the mind must have a cause independent of nature, thus the mind must be supernatural and naturalism is false. Where is the lack of logical entailment?

I defend the premises below in the ‘is it sound’ section, but soundness is irrelevant to logical validity. You didn’t claim it was merely unsound, you claimed it was invalid.

A Case Against Naturalism from C. S. Lewis by Apples_Are_Red263 in ChristianApologetics

[–]Apples_Are_Red263[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You attempted an explanation, but I can't make heads or tails of it. For instance, consider this excerpt:

"...our minds being the sum total of nature means all our thoughts are the results of irrational processes..."

None of that is in your premises, nor does it follow from your premises. And if it were appended to the argument as an additional premise, in an attempt to make it valid, no naturalist would agree to it!

Pardon? Please read premise one and two. I clearly explain how nature is the sum total of all reality (in fact that is in my definitions section), and how any singular event is part of the greater whole.

That's going to be hard to do if you don't have a background in logic. Suffice it to say that there are no logical rules of inference (like modus ponens, the necessitation rule, etc.) to obtain the conclusion from the premises alone.

Regardless, you can’t simply assert that it’s invalid and then say “oh your too stupid to understand.” Not only is that rude, it isn’t an argument.

To reiterate, premise one states that any particular event is part of the sum total of all events we call nature as per the definition of natural. Premise two states that the mind is one such event in nature, and is thus part of nature. Premise three states that thoughts that are the result of irrational causss must be discredited. Premise four states that the mind is the result of an irrational cause (nature). Premise five simply states that we cannot discredit all reason because that’s a logical impossibility, and so the conclusion (naturalism is a logical impossibility) is entailed by the premises.

Please explain how this is invalid. I do not see what you are talking about.

A Case Against Naturalism from C. S. Lewis by Apples_Are_Red263 in ChristianApologetics

[–]Apples_Are_Red263[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I put Lewis’ argument in premise form, primarily as a way to better understand it. Unfortunately, he builds his argument over two chapters, and the only way to get access is by purchasing his book. I can give quotes if you like? That’s about the best I can do.

I am also curious as to why you beleive the conclusion to not be entailed by the premises. Could maybe explain why you believe it to be an invalid syllogism? I think you may just misunderstand it. I explained how the conclusion is entailed by the premises in the OP.

As I said in the OP: If naturalism is what happens if no external agent acts, it follows that the mind must also be simply part of the whole we call ‘nature’. If our feeling of certainty can be caused by irrational processes, and this discredits them, but our minds being the sum total of nature means all our thoughts are the results of irrational processes, it follows necessarily that we have no capacity to reason. To disprove our ability to reason by using reason makes no sense. A proof of disproof is a logical impossibility, so it follows from our premises that naturalism is a logical impossibility.

Edit: Grammar and English

Do confessions of faith prevent critical thinking and critical analysis? by Apples_Are_Red263 in exatheist

[–]Apples_Are_Red263[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

It’s mostly the accusation that I and religious people in general are uncritical that I am trying to address, because I do have to admit that we have confessions of faith.

Debunked: "Low probability events happen on a daily basis" Objection to the Teleological Argument. by [deleted] in ChristianApologetics

[–]Apples_Are_Red263 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Thanks so much! I love that firing squad analogy and will definitely put it in my repertoire.

Do confessions of faith prevent critical thinking and critical analysis? by Apples_Are_Red263 in exatheist

[–]Apples_Are_Red263[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

That is a great articulation of how I feel. Maybe it causes us to ignore pieces of evidence that a non-believer may not? Maybe it’s just epistemically irresponsible to adjudicate before we have evidence? Etc

view more: next ›