How come atheists keep undermining the philosophical basis for the Western view of rationality they champion?Why don't they stop parasitizing on the Western intellectual tradition and invent their own godless alternative from first principles? How come their attempts usually end up in stuff like postmodernist denial of there being truth at all?
This is the level of debate christlards and irony poisoned trolls have devolved topictures of sonic the hedgehogwhich all say and mean the same thing
>>18523749Plenty of atheists have coherent frameworks of ontology and epistemology.
>>18523760>Plenty of atheists have coherent frameworks of ontology and epistemology.Name one.
>>18523760Can you name one that doesn't quietly borrow its foundational assumptions from a tradition it publicly rejects?
>>18523763Nature doesn't require an agent for patterns to exist, retard.
>>18523762Graham Oppy
>>18523773What is "nature" without a prior framework for what counts as real? and where did that framework come from?
>>18523775Who (literally)? What does he base his framework on?
>>18523762The fuck you mean name oneis having that level of intellectual thought a form of currency or what? do you want me to go knocking door by door asking each retard who calls himself an atheist "ugh whats ur ontolgy" and then come back with a census? may i remind you, your level of intellectual thought is: "GOD DID IT AND IF WE DO NOT DO WHAT HE SAYS WE BURN IN MAGIC LAVA FOREVER LIKE THE WOMAN DECEIVED BY THE TALKING SNAKE!!! DDD:"go fucking get lynched by your equally mentally retarded christian friends you fucking lard waste of oxygen
>>18523763No one "borrows from the christian worldview". I don't know where you guys got this shit from and why you run presupp/TAG but it is extremely philosophically illiterate.
>>18523776Nature doesn't require a prior framework by definition. What's your evidence that there's a god making patterns possible?
>>18523781>The fuck you mean name oneI mean you literally can't. It's a rhetorical question.
>>18523784Who said anything about God, and why did you assume that was the only alternative to your framework?
>>18523749This is a survey of the percentage of modern philosopher's beliefshttps://survey2020.philpeople.org/survey/results/allI cant find a more recent one. Anyway, the majority of philosophers are atheists and also realists about knowledge and truth, so it's clearly the case that most atheist philosophers are not in a "postmodern state of denying that there is truth"
>>18523790>the majority of philosophers are atheistsThe majority of "philosophers" are academoids with a degree in autistically dissecting/regurgitating the works of actual philosophers, of which there are few to none currently alive.
>>18523789I didn't assume anything schizo but I accept your concession that there's no evidence for god.
>>18523794>t-they don't countThe greatest ancient and premodern philosophers were also atheists. The heckin' church fathers were not real philosophers btw
>>18523773>>18523784>>18523798Why are you trying to copy my argument when you don't know what it is? You gotta relax anon
>>18523799They literally don't as demonstrated by the fact that you can't even name any of them.>my subjective opinions about greatnessI don't care.
>>18523798When did a question become a concession?
>>18523801What's your argument, retarded schizo?
>>18523806I did though
>>18523807When you failed to explain why patterns can't exist without god.
>>18523809>I didQuote their names, then. Protip: if your next post contains no names or ctrl+f on the names returns no results, you're a confirmed schizophrenic.
>>18523810Did I fail, or did I simply refuse to accept your definition of "patterns" and "exist" as settled, which was rather the whole point?
>>18523813>>18523775There's also guys like Graham Priest who works on paraconsistent logic, Alex Malpass who does work on logic as well, Dennett who died two years ago now, Quine who died some time ago but is a major modern philosopher, etc
>>18523824OH also guys like Tim Maudlin are very interesting on the foundations of physics. One could say that Sean Carroll is a philosopher as well but he's a scientist first and foremost. Even someone like Scott Aaronson, although he's a computer scientist he engages in philosophy a lot as well.
>>18523824>There's also... There's no "also". You gave up when asked to specify what literally who's framework is based on.
>>18523844You asked for names of some modern philosophers and I gave them
>>18523846>You asked for names of some modern philosophersI didn't but I accept your concession.
>>18523749>Mom I posted it again
>>18523749Isn't this thread already on the board
>>18523879No, the original didn't have a brainlet sonic the hedgehog AIslop meme.
>>18523781This is not how sane people respond to logical challenges.
>>18523781This is a fallacy of personal incredulity thobeit calm down son
>>18523763Christian logic is reliant on Plato and Aristotle, who would have hated Christianity.
>>18524056That reminds me, a lot of early Church Fathers like Justin Martyr claimed Socrates was “proto-Christian,” but he really wasn’t. His last request before his execution was literally to sacrifice a rooster to Asclepius and he believed he was following the will of Apollo based on the Oracle of Delphi proclaiming him to be the wisest man in Athens. The actual reason he was executed was because several of his followers became the thirty tyrants who terrorized Athens (hence why he was charged with “corrupting the youth.” Athens declared a political amnesty after restoring democracy, meaning that the court could not legally charge Socrates for past treason, so vague charges like “corrupting the youth” allowed prosecutors to punish him for the results of his teachings without violating the amnesty). The idea that he “rejected pagan gods” is largely a myth, what he did reject was the traditional anthropomorphic depiction of the gods and the myths surrounding them, not the gods’ existence or worship which he viewed as legitimate. When Socrates claimed that true gods should not be humanlike or temperamental like the myths portray them as, he wasn’t using it as proof the gods weren’t real but rather as proof that Homer was slandering the gods. Funnily enough though, many of his critiques of traditional myths also apply to Christianity and later opponents of Christianity like Celsus and Emperor Julian used those exact same arguments in their critiques of Christianity. Socrates believed that the divine are perfect, transcendent beings and in this worldview, the idea of a god becoming a man of flesh and blood and allowing himself to be crucified and experience any sort of pain or suffering is downright degrading. Not to mention that the Hebrew Bible depicts God as a wrathful, jealous being prone to emotional outbursts which is incompatible with the Socratic belief that the divine must be changeless and immune to emotional outbursts.
>>18523785name one christian with 180+ iqoh cant?oh waow what an amazing rhetorical question i just pulled right
Christniggers stop parasitizing on ancient Greek philosophy.Thank you.
>>18523762Marxism
>>18523749The Sonic Hedgehog gene (SHH) is a master regulator that acts as a chemical signal during embryonic development. It is essential for cell growth, determining cell specialization, and shaping the bodies of most vertebrates—from brain division and facial features to the growth of limbs and digits.
>>18523749Your entire argument is based on the presumption that a conclusion needs to depend on its premises for all time.You cannot draw a true inference from a false assumption and later on correct.Why do you believe it?Even worse, the core of your reasoning appears to be:> That a vast majority of people hold the believe in X, something good y will happend> Therefor, we need to let the vast majority believe in X, no matter if X is true or false.This argument can be reduced to the point of Plato's noble lie. Though you can assert that a noble lie exists, the intellectual tradition of rationality you assign to the West would not allow it.In the modern, Western academic view, everything has to be made public in order to allow experimental replication, testing, and critique. If there are some beliefs that are false yet socially so useful that we need to hold them anyway, then these beliefs would be excluded from the process of replication and peer review.To put it simply, either your current mode of discovery of the truth is the best one, or noble lies exist...
>>18523763Russell, Quine and Satre, just to name a few.For my knowledge, Feynman, too.>>18523782Anon is not entirly wrong.Some atheists take their moral or basic assumpetion from ideas developed through Christian theological history.We need to remember:A -> B doesn't mean that B has to be wrong in the case of A is wrong. B can be true and A can be false. The logical inference just preclude the possibility that A is true and B not.>>18523794>"No true philosopher would disagree with me on my religious prejudicies".https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/no-true-scotsman>>18523799>The greatest ancient and premodern philosophers were also atheistsWhy are you guys so insufferable ignorant?It is still true that during historical ages, the argument that some kind of intelligence produces the different kinds of natural life forms was very sound. If you put yourself in the position of an actual truthseeking scholar from the Middle Ages or the Age of Reason, you would ask yourself the question "where did these different animals and plants come from, and why does it appear that there is an inherent purpose, a Telos, in them?" and at this point, the answer that a deity planned and created it would seem very natural and plausible.It wasn't until Kant and Darwin that this lost its plausibility. Kant, with his "Kritik der Urteilskraft", states that the human mind attributes intention to nature, but we are still not justified in believing in an actual intention. Darwin, of course, explains apparent purposes in nature through selection and random change.These two attacks from different angles undermine the argument for generations later on.
>>18524340>Russell, Quine and Satre, just to name a few.None of them did anything to justify their presupposition that rationality is even possible.
>>18524317>Your entire argument is based on the presumption that a conclusion needs to depend on its premises for all time.Not at all. Feel free to justify the relevant conclusions by other means, so that they remain actual conclusions and not arbitrary presuppositions you feel comfortable borrowing because your intellectual superiors established them logically first.
>>18523781>atheists believe nothing because atheism is a non-belief
>>18524340>>"No true philosopher would disagree with me on my religious prejudicies".Whom are you quoting? I don't have prejudices against mentally ill people but you're hallucinating and that's inappropriate for an intelligent discussion.
>>18524374>None of them did anything to justify their presupposition that rationality is even possible.First of all, the question "How is Rationality even possible?" is a valid one.Yet, thinkers from Chinese history and the old Greeks had ask themself this questions long before the rise of Christianity.Second, I admit that there is a point at which some kind of Deism appears more plausible than the evolutionary worldview of Atheism.This point is the question of whether our shared human intellect, the faculty of recognition, is capable of inquiring into and understanding the world. If we accept it as granted that the same creator who brought this world into being also made the human intellect, then it appears much more rational to infer that the intellect can understand the world.Evolution as such merely demands the faculties of an animal to be good enough to survive and reproduce. This, unfortunately, doesn't include the faculty to understand the universe. It could very well be that there is a boundary stone, hammered into our intellect itself, which states, "until here, you have been guided by an inner light, now you're deaf in perfect darkness...".Yet, this doesn't mean we should reject our own intellect and act as if we do not know. Atheists can form an argument on the base of what we know about history, science and philosophy.Third, in practice, Christians assume that our intellect works correctly, just as everyone else. I mean, the entire concept of a proof of God would be meaningless if proofs only work if God exists. The apologetics put too much effort into a rational justification to think otherwise. (I know there is a bit sophistery, here.)>>18524382>Whom are you quoting? I don't have prejudices against mentally ill people but you're hallucinating and that's inappropriate for an intelligent discussion.C'mon.
>>18524428>the old Greeks had ask themself this questionsRight. So what's the classic answer in Western intellectual tradition? :^)>this doesn't mean we should reject our own intellect and act as if we do not know.Who said you should?>Atheists can form an argument on the base of what we know about history, science and philosophy.They can "form an argument" but can they justify their means of argumentation?
>>18524428>Christians assume that our intellect works correctly, just as everyone else.Assuming things is not philosophy. Philosophy is when you justify your assumptions.>the entire concept of a proof of God would be meaningless if proofs only work if God exists.Why? This is a nonsensical statement.
>people are actually trying to run presuppReminder that screaming "christ is kang" is not a justification for rationality.
>>18524376>Feel free to justify the relevant conclusions by other means, so that they remain actual conclusions and not arbitrary presuppositions you feel comfortable borrowing because your intellectual superiors established them logically first.What is a valid justification of a assertation?You seems to insists that a valid justification needs to be a logical inference. Logical inferences, however, need a premisses. So, you asks for something impossible.
>>18524434>Right. So what's the classic answer in Western intellectual tradition? :^)To my knowledge, Aristotle believe that under normal circumstances, our Reason works fine.>They can "form an argument" but can they justify their means of argumentation? I can, to some degree. As you can.>>18524438>Philosophy is when you justify your assumptions.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%C3%BCnchhausen_trilemmaAristotle starts with "first principles." Kant postulates synthetic a priori knowledge. Modern theorists need axioms. You need to start somewhere, this is true.>>18524439Agree.
>>18524374>None of them did anything to justify their presupposition that rationality is even possible.This is a straight up lie
>>18524441>>18524445>To my knowledge, Aristotle believe that under normal circumstances, our Reason works fine.That's not a congruent reply. Try again.>everything else you wroteGood job figuring out that you can't get something out of nothing. That doesn't mean you get to just assert whatever you like because it sounds reasonable to you subjectively and treat it like an axiom.
How come christkikes consistently conflate rationality with faith in jewish fairytales?[reddit space]Why don't they stop parasitizing on the Western intellectual tradition and invent their own semitic alternative from first principles?[reddit space]How come their attempts usually end up in stuff like jewish denial of reality?
>>18524446>This is a straight up lieOk, what did Sartre (whose name you retards can't even spell correctly) do to justify it? Protip: your next post will contain seething and deflections but no answer.
>>18524455Retard, you said "none of them". Quine very much argued for how rationality is possible
>>18524456I accept your concession wrt. Sartre. > Quine very much argued for how rationality is possibleOk, what valid argument did Quine put forward to justify rationality?Protip: your next post will contain seething and deflections but no answer.
>>18524451>That's not a congruent reply. Try again.This is the answer Aristotle provide us.>Good job figuring out that you can't get something out of nothing.You can't either.>That doesn't mean you get to just assert whatever you like because it sounds reasonable to you subjectively and treat it like an axiom.You literally wants to justify Christianity by this thought.>>18524453>reddit spaceLook into the archives, this style of writing doesn't came from reddit.>>18524455By means of phenomenology.>>18524458Logic.
>>18524460>mongoloidal non-responsesI accept your full and direct concession of all my points.
>>18524462You don't have any arguments. Calling the other part retard will not win.What is your point?I have no problem with ultimativ skepticism. I wonder if you accapt this.
>>18524458You said "none of them". thus if one of them could, you are wrong. You're retarded>Ok, what valid argument did Quine put forward to justify rationality?So you've never even read Quine?I swear the christians on this board are all such fucking morons it's insufferable.
>>18524466>can't answer the questionI accept your second concession wrt. Quine. Let's move on to your third concession:Ok, what valid argument did Russell put forward to justify rationality?Protip: your next post will contain seething and deflections but no answer.
>>18524467I didn't concede, shit for brains. Quine argued the analytic/synthetic distinction isn't real and thus all rationality is a posteriori. This is a justification.
>18524467You retard believes you will win with this strategy?If and when you deny any kind of rationality to work, how will you know about anything?
>>18524464>What is your point?That if you're going to treat something as a foundational axiom, it better be logically unavoidable, tie in with your basic concept of reality and actually function as the grounding for everything else instead of being an item in the shopping list of things you subjectively believe to be "obvious".
>>18524471>Quine argued ...Go ahead and present the argument.Protip: your next post will contain seething and deflections but no answer. (Again)
>>18524476So you never read Quine? I accept your concession.
@18524480>educate yourself, bigotIf you're gonna namedrop philosophers shouldn't you at least be able to discuss whatever it is you believe they said?Truly an 80 IQ board.
>>18523780Why was this never answered?
@18524483I already accepted your concession
>>18523749So I take it that what you’re arguing is something like this:>Rational inquiry presupposes truth, logic, intelligibility, stable meanings, and a mind capable of knowing reality. Christianity, or at least classical theism, gives a metaphysical account of why those things exist. Atheism uses them but cannot explain why they are validI'm curious to understand what you would say a non-Christian justification of rationality would have to look like for you to accept that it was not merely “borrowing” from Christianity.Also, are you making a historical claim that Western rationality developed partly through Christian civilisation, or a logical claim that rationality cannot be justified unless Christianity is true?
>>18524484>Why was this never answered?Because sworn members of the atheism cult mentally shut down the moment you ask them to explain in their own words what [atheist authority figure] said.
>another thread of christian seethingJesus didn't rise from the dead and he's never coming back. You guys need to stop this ridiculousness. The cult isn't true.
>>18524486I didn't say anything about "borrowing from Christianity" but I do say the Western intellectual tradition is rooted in the Logos (which Christian theologians had the good sense to adopt and adapt).Also see >>18524474>if you're going to treat something as a foundational axiom, it better be logically unavoidable, tie in with your basic concept of reality and actually function as the grounding for everything else instead of being an item in the shopping list of things you subjectively believe to be "obvious".If you can find something like that to ground the atheist's inherited beliefs about his own rationality and the intelligibility of the universe, that'll refute my attack.
>>18524496So your position is not specifically that atheists are “borrowing from Christianity,” but that rationality has to be grounded in something like the Logos: a foundational principle that is logically unavoidable, fits into one’s basic account of reality, and grounds intelligibility rather than merely appearing on a list of assumed beliefs.That seems like a much stronger and more interesting claim.My question then is: does the Logos itself meet that standard, and if so, how?By “logically unavoidable,” do you mean that denying it entails a contradiction, that reasoning already presupposes it, or that it is the best metaphysical explanation for rationality? Those are different claims.Because if the point is simply that all inquiry requires some basic commitment to intelligibility, then atheists and theists are both in that position. The atheist may treat rational structure, logic, or the intelligibility of nature as basic. The theist may treat Logos or God as basic. But then the question becomes why your stopping-place is uniquely justified while the atheist’s stopping-place is merely “subjective” or “inherited.”So what makes Logos logically unavoidable rather than your preferred metaphysical interpretation of the rational order?
>>18524486>>18524474There is nothing "Christian" about your argument.Just a dose of philosophical Deism would do the same work.The theory of evolution indicates that our human mind has evolved to survive on some places on the surface of Earth.So, we can have some degree of certainity that our intellect will work here and now.The question if we can understand the universe as a whole is, from a Atheist point of view, undecided.It is just irrational to exchange honest uncertainity with blind believe.If you define God as "logically unavoidable, tie in with your basic concept of reality and actually function as the grounding for everything" etc., then your concept of God is more close to Spinoza. There is, for instance, no need to be that a reason that is " logically unavoidable, tie in with your basic concept of reality and actually function as the grounding for everything" is a person.
>>18524502>LLM slopDidn't read.>>18524503>There is nothing "Christian" about your argument.No shit, mentally ill mongoloid.
>>18524504Fair enough. Here is the compressed version:By your own standard, a foundation has to be logically unavoidable. So what makes Logos logically unavoidable?
>>18524487>Because sworn members of the atheism cult mentally shut down the moment you ask them to explain in their own words what [atheist authority figure] said.I can.Sartre based his philosophy on phenomenology, i. e. he inquired our perception if we learn something new etc.From this base, he came to a worldview in which the world as the creation of a consciousnes being is impossible. Since this world has the quality of en-soi.Russell developed different views during his life, I have not read all of it. Quine clearly states that "to be is to be the value of a bound variable".>>18524496If you're going to treat something as a foundational axiom, it better be self-evident or of pratical use in the daily life.>>18524504>No shit, mentally ill mongoloid.Where cames your "logos" from?
>>18524505>So what makes Logos logically unavoidable?It distills your otherwise unsupportable assumptions about your own rationality, the intelligibility of the universe, of there being logical and natural laws (as in actual laws, not just provisional and circumstantial patterns in perception) etc. into a singular principle that you implicitly assume in any case.
>>18524511>Sartre based his philosophy on phenomenologyPhenomenology doesn't concern itself with justifications of rationality, only the subjective perception of it.>If you're going to treat something as a foundational axiom it better be accessible to retards like me and help me wipe my assI accept your concession.>Where cames your "logos" from?See >>18524515
>>18524515Saying that Logos distills my assumptions into one principle shows that it is a possible metaphysical interpretation of them. It does not show that denying Logos entails contradiction. So what would you expect to see differently if intelligibility were a basic feature of reality rather than grounded in a distinct Logos principle?
>>18524515Let me do the same thing:> 1. I define p as a shortcut for all assumptions, conditions and effects necessary that our human intellect work.> 2. I somehow suggest that from p it follows q.> 3. Therefor, q must be the case or otherwise our faculty to reason doesn't work.This argument doesn't just demand that our reason works at all — you cannot fully preclude the possibility that our thoughts don't even come close to the truth - It just states some arbitrary statements as a consequence.You don't make anything clearer by defining it into something like p or "logos". If you want to draw meaningful conclusions from p, you need to analyze it into its parts and show how they demand q.
>>18524530You're legit a mouth-breathing cretin with zero rational thoughts.
>>18524535>retarded and irrelevant AI slopSee >>18524541
>>18524524>I accept your concession.I just want to show you how arbitrary your criteria are. I could even state that a fundamental axiom needs to be as minimal as possible. In this case, you would never come close to something like "Logos".In fact, then we would arrive at something like evolutionary epistemology.We know from evolutionary history that our biological ancestors have been capable of surviving. In order to survive as animals, they needed the ability to understand their environment to some degree. Thus, our reasoning qualifies us to understand our environment to some extent.>Phenomenology doesn't concern itself with justifications of rationality, only the subjective perception of it.What is a "justification of rationality"?
>>18524543>I just want to show you how arbitrary your criteria areYou didn't show anything, you're just drooling all over your keyboard.
>>18524542You braindead idiot, this is not AI. I wrote it with my own fingers.Just because you are too uneducated to see arguments wrote down in dots for more clearity, it doesn't mean that only a machine would come up with it...
What does the logos have to do with atheism or theism?
>You braindead idiot, this is not AI. I wrote it with my own fingers.>Just because you are too uneducated to see arguments wrote down in dots for more clearity, it doesn't mean that only a machine would come up with it...
What if the universe is just a machine?
>>18524541That response just goes to show that theists are just singularly nasty, stupid, miserable people whose composure completely crumbles when they're actually challenged on their insipid beliefs.I can easily imagine that if you were to believe in leprechauns, you would appeal to the same horseshit.>muh logos>muh irreducible complexity>muh uncaused causer>therefore, leprechauns are real
>>18524549>What does the logos have to do with atheism or theism?It developed into something transcendental and teleological in Ancient Greece already, before being adopted by Christian theologians (who framed it as explicitly divine) and becoming part of the Western intellectual foundations in that form.
>>18524558Please consult >>18524541
>>18524562Why does logos have to be transcendental and teleological?
>>18524565Yeah, I saw that already you retard. Hope you get cheated on. And when that happens: don't pretend to be a victim because there's nothing wrong with infidelity, anyway. It's a valid form of love and sexual fulfillment and whining about it makes you evil. Simple as.
>>18524571>Why does logos have to be transcendental and teleological?I'm not convinced that it has to be teleological but it does have to be transcendental to serve the role given to it (see >>18524515), otherwise it's at best how nature currently appears to be and nothing to be relied on.
>>18524579>deranged mindbroken seetheI concept your accession.
>>18524593My mind isn't broken, dumbass. You're the one being aggressive about your imaginary friend and your pet ideology and doing absolutely nothing to substantiate it because you are simply unable to and it's sliding further into obsolescence every day.
>>18524600>deranged mindbroken seethe: part 2I congrat your circumcision.
>>18524580Yea, I don't see how it is teleological. As for transcendental, that seems to be a stronger claim because we want to be able to say that location or time are independent of the "governing principle", but I don't see why it is necessary to think of it as some sort of external principle that corrals the behavior of things as opposed to some sort of natural extension of the behavior of nature itself. It is still universal and able to be relied upon at all times and places.
>>18524609>It is still universal and able to be relied upon at all times and places.Arbitrary assertion.
>>18524604You're not funny and you're not clever, dipshit. I asked you to clarify your positions and you did absolutely nothing to do that.And for the last time, I am not "mindbroken" and I am not "seething." I am mocking you because you're an asshole.
>>18524613It isn't arbitrary. Nature is universal and it's behavior is universal, so we don't need the claim of transcendental logos to have justification for rationality. To claim otherwise would be to say nature is not equal to itself which is a contradiction. Thus it is a necessary truth
>>18524618>It isn't arbitrary.Ok. Then prove it.> Nature is universal and it's behavior is universalThis is a nonstatement.
>>18524623>This is a nonstatement.No it isn't. Nature is defined as "all that exists".
>>18524623Nature, by definition, is all that exists. If there are regularities, structures, or laws, they are features of nature, not signs that nature requires an external Logos. Calling those regularities “arbitrary” unless grounded in Logos is special pleading unless you can show that Logos itself is less arbitrary.
You will always remain a mentally ill retard stringing together vacuous sentences like a primitive LLM.Either way, as soon as atheists start talking about "laws of nature" (as in actual, permanent laws), they're either implicitly appealing to some external law-giving element, or elevating "nature" from a catch-all label for the set of empirical facts about the current state of affairs (something inherently transient) into something beyond that (i.e. assuming a transcendental structure and calling it "nature").
>>18524638But I never referenced "laws of nature". You're saying that something being universal requires that it is transcendental. That doesn't follow.
Then how do you know that post was addressing you? Is it because you intuitively know "mentally ill retard" applies to you?
>>18524646I am >>18524624 not >>18524627Something being universal doesn't mean it's transcendental.
Note that my posts are only addressing:- A mentally ill retard- Atheists who believe there are laws of nature (as in actual, permanent laws)Which one are you?
>>18524652Why are you confused? Something being universal does not mean it necessarily must be transcendental. So the claim that "natural laws" requires grounding in a transcendental logos is a non sequitur.
>Something being universal does not mean it necessarily must be transcendental.Anyone know what this mentally ill retard is trying to refute? Is it arguing with voices in its head?
>>18524661Your claim here > they're either implicitly appealing to some external law-giving element, or elevating "nature" from a catch-all label for the set of empirical facts about the current state of affairs (something inherently transient) into something beyond that (i.e. assuming a transcendental structure and calling it "nature").Is wrong.
>U RONG!!!!!Why are mentally ill retards like this?
>>18524669It is not the case that something being universal means that it is transcendental, so it is not the case that anyone is elevating it to some transcendental structure in these arguments.
Notice how the psychotic patient keeps trying to "refute" claims no one made. Also note that it can't reflect on its incoherent behavior and stop looping.
>>18524675The precise claim you made was >elevating "nature" from a catch-all label for the set of empirical facts about the current state of affairs (something inherently transient) into something beyond that (i.e. assuming a transcendental structure and calling it "nature").No one is doing this.
I don't know why it's so funny to watch an obvious subhuman's "mind" acting like a broken primitive mechanism.
>>18524679You're an idiot.
>>18524638>elevating "nature" from a catch-all label for the set of empirical facts about the current state of affairs (something inherently transient) into something beyondIt being transient as a whole doesn't mean every aspect of it must be transient. Something about it might be and arguably must be causing future states to conform to what we think of as physical laws. It doesn't have to be externally imposed.
>>18524686>must be causingYou're assuming nature abides by causality. It falls squarely under the criticism you're trying to refute.
>>18524686The guy you're talking to is a schizophrenic who makes nonsensical posts when he is disproved.
>>18524694>You're assuming nature abides by causality.Fair enough, but I can do without it. Let's say the current state simply constrains the possible future states. That is, the future is implicit in the facts of the present. That way the patterns of nature perpetuate themselves based only on "the set of empirical facts about the current state of affairs".
>>18524699>mentally ill retard seethes profusely>>18524729>Let's say the current state simply constrains the possible future statesNow instead of the paradox of nothing causing something you have the opposite problem: nothing includes a total absence of constraints, so it fails to prevent an infinity of mutually exclusive followups.
>>18524743>>mentally ill retard seethes profuselyRetard, I directly responded to your posts, and all you could do was impotently seethe and claim that I didnt despite it being right there for everyone to see.You are schizophrenic and retarded.
>>18524743>nothing includes a total absence of constraints, so it fails to prevent an infinity of mutually exclusive followups.Who said there ever was nothing? For all you know there's always been and will always be something.
>>18524754Then you just have an infinite regress of past states needed to constrain the future.
>>18524754You're retarded
>>18524751Just take your meds and let the adults in the room talk.
>>18524759There is nothing wrong with an infinite regress of past states.
>>18524762I directly refuted you. You're going to have to stop coping.
>>18524562>It developed into something transcendental and teleological in Ancient Greece already,Kek,dude, you try the use the same word for two different concept.Initially, you define "logos" as the pre-requirements that our rational faculty of recognition works.Then, you argue that it is something "telelogical" and "transcedental". How do you justify your claim? Because the Antique Greeks philosophy developed the concept into something.Do you get it? Either you postulate that the specific history of Greek thought reveal something about reality (1) or you mix up two different conceptions because it use the same word.In addition, since I'm not that stupid, you choice the word "logos" because of the Gospel of John.So you story is: (a) Some Greek philosopher defined logos as our capability of recognition the truth. (b) Later on, some Greek dudes use the word with new meaning. (c) Somehow, the meaning mix up... (d) The Gospel tell us that this logos is Jesus.Checkmate Atheists!Your entire argument depends on (c). You proof nothing if you can't show way this means the same.>>18524571He put it out from his ass. Kek.
>>18524763>There is nothing wrong with an infinite regressOk, brainlet.
>>18524775>Ok, brainletNot an argument
>>18524775There is nothing logically or metaphysically invalid about an infinite regress, brainlet.
>>18524768Excruciatingly low-IQ post about how you can't grasp the evolution of a concept.
>>18524777>>18524779>infinite regress is heckin' valid b-b-because>BECAUSE!!!I'm not seeing any argument there. You're dismissed.
>>18524782Infinite regress is completely logically valid, it does not imply any contradictions. You're extremely retarded
>Infinite regress is completely logically valid
Another thread of common atheist WinsWhy do theists lose every single debate every time?
>>18524759You only think that because you want determinism to be true. An infinite cause is how free will is possible. Defining a first cause is arbitrary. Its an agreed upon starting point, but even that first cause can be further understood beyond the current definition. It's a place holder of infinite potential (omnipotence).
>>18524775>infinite regress is heckin' invalid b-b-because>BECAUSE!!!I'm not seeing any argument there. You're dismissed
>>18524785Yes, infinite regress is valid. Stop coping, brainlet.
>>18524786It's just this one moldovan with a humiliation fetish
The problem with the atheists on this board is that they engage with clearly schizophrenic and unintelligent people thinking that they are engaging in good faith.To the atheists here: How do you not see that the theists cucks you're arguing with are clearly mentally ill and unable to actually engage with what you're saying? Every time one of you brings up a good point, they just completely break down. You win every interaction but they aren't actually engaging with what you're saying, so it's moot.
The reason the validity of an argument requires sound judgement is to avoid infinite regress. The soundness of an argument is called "sound" to relate it to a perception. The foundational premise is precieved, and the logical argument expands from the first premise.
>>18524759>Then you just have an infinite regress of past states needed to constrain the future.Yeah, if you're trying to account for a given state by a logical sequence, you'll have no true starting point. That's a problem for your approach, not for mine. Looks like you're still reasoning in terms causality a la Thomas Aquinas where the logical problem would be an ontological one.
>>18524580>otherwise it's at best how nature currently appears to be and nothing to be relied on.Basically, you r3tard agree with me on every point but still insult me because I don't accept your arbitrary leap of faith as given. Thanks.>>18524624>18524638It is not clear, by definition (or a priori means) that nature is uniform, that it follows the same rules at every place and time. The universality of the laws of nature arises from human intelligence and wit. The laws of nature are part of our scientific models that attempt to explain and predict the course of events. Our intellect tends to seek universal laws rather than expect exceptions or gaps in nature's unified flow.Laws of nature do not require a law‑giving authority; they are descriptions. In fact, they are a kind of reduction. Newton, Kepler et al. reduced the complex description of the motions of celestial bodies to simpler rules.>>18524775How do you know that a infinite regress is not possible?
>>18524817>>18524780>Excruciatingly low-IQ post about how you can't grasp the evolution of a concept.As it has been stated before ( >>18524535 ),you either need to explain why the historical use of the word by the ancient Greeks reveals something about the concept itself (1) or you have mixed up two different things because language uses the same word for both (2). The option (2) is a common fallacy. It is called "Homonym"...Suppose you mean (1). Then you need to show how the Greeks inferred or otherwise discovered that the Logos must have some property. The fact that a group of people believes something about a topic and then changes their mind step by step does not mean they developed a deeper understanding of the thing named. If that were the case, every change in language would indicate a deeper understanding or a new discovery about a thing.This is not the case, as even the concept of imaginary things change over time, e.g. Vampires or Ghosts.>>18524785It is logical valid in the sense.Imagine a line of cause-effect-relations:-n...-3, -2, -1, (You are here), 1, 2, 3... nAs long as you doesn't give this relation other properties and assume some other things, like the well-ordering theorem etc.
>>18524810>That's a problem for your approach, not for mine. Looks like you're still reasoning in terms causality a la Thomas Aquinas where the logical problem would be an ontological one.Looks like you've correctly determined that the present isn't logically explicable under your assumptions. That's not a problem?
>>18524817>>18524819>thinking anyone is going to read this retarded slopNot happening. But this still jumped out at me:>Imagine a line of cause-effect-relations:>-n...-3, -2, -1, (You are here), 1, 2, 3... nHoly Mother of Mentally Retarded Schizos. What am I supposed to make of this? That you think natural numbers are "causing" each other in an infinite regress?
>>18524827>natural numbersinteger numbers*
>>18524810>>18524817>>18524819Retards, see >>18524800The schizo you're arguing with literally doesn't even try to read what you're saying
>>18524822>the present isn't logically explicable under your assumptions.It's not explicable in the way you want it to be, i.e. not as a flat sequence of states logically justifying subsequent states, but you can still reason about it on a meta level. The idea of an eternal pattern is exactly that.
>>18524827Anon, -3 or -1 are not NATURAL numbers.You are clearly out of your depth. Read a few books and then come back, please.Or do you want to talk about non-standard-models? ;)
>>18524842>mentally ill retard desperately grasping at straws
>>18524799Its strange that he seems to spend all his time here. He also posts on /sci/ all the time.
>>18524841>The idea of an eternal pattern is exactly that.That just takes you all the way back to this: >>18524638>elevating "nature" from a catch-all label for the set of empirical facts about the current state of affairs (something inherently transient) into something beyond that (i.e. assuming a transcendental structure and calling it "nature").You claim one thing but when I question you about it, your reasoning appeals to another. "Eternal pattern" is just "natural laws" by another name. It's an abstraction over your definition of nature but you clearly believe it's a thing that exists.
>>18524861Its handlers are clearly giving it too much free time.
>>18524863I never implied it exists independently from the states that perpetuate it, tough.
>>18524886I already went over this exact point with the schizo earlier and his response was to just pretend that I didn't respond to him. Did you read the posts before?
>>18524886>I never implied it exists independently from the states that perpetuate it, tough.So what's your bottom line? That you conceived of some abstraction, over a hypothetical sequence of states whose evolution you can't logically ground, and you just assume it will hold forever because it's not impossible?
>>18524896Yep, exactly. If you can postulate a transcendental root cause for order in the universe which you can't prove, then I can postulate a self-perpetuating natural regularity that I can't prove. Problem?
>>18524909>I can postulate a self-perpetuating natural regularity that I can't proveYou can prove it though
>>18524909No problem at all, except for the part where your assumption is actually derived from the very thing it's intended to logically support and I don't see where rationality (which was the original challenge) even enters the picture. Even if I grant your weird circular reasoning, it's perfectly compatible with the possibility that you're wrong and inherently incapable of judging truth from falsehood as part of nature's regularity.
>>18524914>You can prove it thoughStarting from what?>inb4 logosHume had a point and I'm yet to see anyone get around it without just postulating stuff.
>>18524915>it's perfectly compatible with the possibility that you're wrong and inherently incapable of judging truth from falsehood as part of nature's regularityYeah, that's reality for ya.
>>18524923And yet you're confident in your rationality. Curious!
>>18524941Yes, but not too confident. Look, I don't really care about that. My point was that it's possible for a pattern to perpetuate itself without dependence on anything beyond the present state. Reality is such a pattern - that's my basic premise and I deduce regularity in the universe will continue.I get your complaint, when I say something in the current state of the universe supports the continuation of the pattern, you want the existence of such a state to be deducible from something, but it's not and it doesn't need to be for reality to be real. Your demand for a neat deduction tree for reality in its entirety is just your aesthetic preference.
>>18524969Isn't dismissing my demand for grounding as mere aesthetics itself a philosophical move that requires grounding, or do you only get to play that card and not me?
>>18524989Well, one obvious flaw in your position is that you can't justify your preference for that framework without appealing to the framework itself because you believe everything rational stems from it. A network of mutually supporting elements doesn't have that issue.
>>18525119If multiple contradictory networks can each be internally coherent, what stops your "mutually supporting" system from being an elaborate, self-sealing delusion?
>>18524782Infinite regress has nothing to do with validity. You can not, however, determine soundness, without a witness.
>>18524969>you want the existence of such a state to be deducible from something, but it's notAt least we have that settled. Even if I accept your premise about a supposed eternal pattern, I then have to accept a bunch of additional premises (that it's possible to judge truth from falsehood, that nature abides by the principle non-contradiction, that the universe is intelligible etc.) which are all intuitively related, but have now become independent.>Your demand for a neat deduction tree for reality in its entirety is just your aesthetic preference.Aesthetic preference is not arbitrary. >>18525119>you can't justify your preference for that framework without appealing to the framework itself because you believe everything rational stems from it.Exactly, and why is that a problem?>A network of mutually supporting elements doesn't have that issue.What, as in "A because B" and "B because A"?
>>18525153>Infinite regress has nothing to do with validity.Validity of what? You can't even construct the argument. Are you literally retarded?
>>18524782Logic is a parable of cause and effect.An argument can go on for ever, and be valid. You can keep adding premises and conclusions ad nauseum, forever, in either direction. However, to determine the truth of the argument, you need to select a premise, and accept it as true. This perception and judgement is known as God. When applied to morals, its a judgement of righteous behavior. When applied to logic, it is sound judgment. When applied to science, it is observation. Truth, is a parable of life. To be alive, and to know truth, there must be a beginning and an end. A premise, and a conclusion. In order to know, you must limit yourself, and this is a parable of life and death. For eternal life, and eternal truth, never accept a premise, or a conclusion, as the end, but keep asking why.
>>18525179>An argument can go on for ever, and be valid.Again, retard, it's not just that the argument would go forever, it's that you can't even start it.
>>18525184Can't start it, or did you just start it, which rather suggests it can be started?
>>18525158Arguments consist of premises and conclusions. The validity is how they relate to eachother. You can have validity without soundness. It is theoretically acceptable to say that an argument can be eternal, and valid, if every premise supports the following conclusions. An argument can be eternal, and valid. But validity is not truth. The soundness/truth of an argument, requires a purpose (final conclusion) and an accepted premise (witness/God).
>>18525192His claim was that reality unfolds as a sequence of states but that there's no initial state that everything follows from. How are you getting filtered by this?
>>18525184>can't even start itOf course I can. I can start an argument, and just keep asking "why" everytime I come up with a premise or conclusion. Every parent knows this. I can keep adding conclusions and premises forever. Purpose is what stops us from asking why forever. Once we find a solution that fits our needs, we stop. But theoretically, I could just keep creating an argument forever, with no final premise, and no final conclusion.
>>18525214If there's no initial state, in what sense is it a sequence rather than just an unanchored floating collection of moments you've retroactively narrativized into an order?
>>18525223>If there's no initial state, in what sense is it a sequence rather than just an unanchored floating collection of moments you've retroactively narrativized into an order?Having total order, probably, but that's not sufficient for what he claimed.
>>18524782Infinite regress is valid. I have shown this to you. Do not be heretical.
>>18525229Sufficient for what exactly? Because you've now quietly shifted from explaining reality to merely describing its furniture arrangement?
Not gonna name any names, but a mentally ill retard is currently seething.
>/his/ users do not understand logic: the thread
>>18525243I don't think the moldovan schizo can stop seething desu
