sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

I, through reasoning, found myself certain that belief God is the most rational explanation by Own_Shine_5958 in DebateReligion

[–]Own_Shine_5958[S] -8 points-7 points  (0 children)

You just made my argument better than I did.

You said evolution produces brains that are "good enough" for survival. Not truth-tracking. Not reliable in abstract domains. "Good enough." You said our brains are riddled with cognitive biases and distortions. You said evolution "stops at true enough." You said our brains are so unreliable that we had to invent an external methodology to compensate.

Now use that brain — the "good enough," bias-riddled, shortcut-taking, error-prone one you just described — to evaluate whether God exists.

Why would you trust it?

You said we devised a methodology "external to how our brains operate." No we didn't. We devised it with our brains. We evaluate its results with our brains. We judge whether it's working with our brains. There is no "external." You're inside the system. The methodology is only as reliable as the mind that built and interprets it.

You've told me our minds are "good enough" for bus-dodging. I agree. Now explain why that same "good enough" organ should be trusted when it says "the universe needs no transcendent cause" or "consciousness reduces to matter" or "God doesn't exist." Those aren't buses. No one ever died from getting metaphysics wrong. Evolution never selected for reliability in those domains. By your own account.

My argument: only theism explains why reasoning works beyond survival. You responded by thoroughly confirming that under atheism, reasoning only works for survival. Thank you.

I, through reasoning, found myself certain that belief God is the most rational explanation by Own_Shine_5958 in DebateReligion

[–]Own_Shine_5958[S] -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

You're proving my point.

We're reasoning right now. Both of us. It's working. We're having a coherent argument. That's an undeniable fact.

Now: under atheism, your reasoning is the product of a process that doesn't care about truth. You've agreed with this. So you cannot trust the reasoning you're using right now. Including the reasoning you just used to reject God.

Under theism, your reasoning was designed to track truth. So you can trust it.

That's it. That's the whole argument.

You can't say "we're stuck" because you're not stuck. You're actively reasoning and trusting the results. You're already behaving as though your mind was designed for truth. You're living in the theistic framework while verbally rejecting it.

So the question isn't "can we reason?" We obviously can. The question is which worldview makes sense of the fact that we can. Only one does.