Happy Atheist Forum

I perceive this to be an interesting situation for the naturalistic atheist.  Let me know where I'm missing the point if at all.
For the purposes of this discourse, when I say reason I mean (that which is reasoned/reasonable (r), the capacity to reason (c), or the act of reasoning (v)).
a-conscious past = before consciousness arose.
a-biological past = before natural life
I would say also that for the purposes of this discourse that animals could have a lower consciousness than humans, not that they have none at all.  The point is that it is irrelevant to the argument.

1. Reason(c) by definition necessitates life.
2. That which is intelligible necessitates reason(c).
3. If, and only if intelligibility is independent of natural life can we reason(v) intelligibly about ANYTHING in the a-biological past.
4. We do reason(v) intelligibly about the a-biological past.
5. Intelligibility is independent of natural life. from 3 and 4
6. Intelligibility precedes natural life. from 3-5
7. Intelligibility derives from a life that transcends nature.

Let me know your thoughts.

Quote from: "daviddub"I perceive this to be an interesting situation for the naturalistic atheist.  Let me know where I'm missing the point if at all.
For the purposes of this discourse, when I say reason I mean (that which is reasoned/reasonable (r), the capacity to reason (c), or the act of reasoning (v)).
a-conscious past = before consciousness arose.
a-biological past = before natural life
I would say also that for the purposes of this discourse that animals could have a lower consciousness than humans, not that they have none at all.  The point is that it is irrelevant to the argument.

Some animals may have a higher consciousness than humans.  We're pretty pathetic, ourselves, if deprived of an education.

We're good at what we do:  We are social animals, and we communicate ideas.  Without that...

Quote1. Reason(c) by definition necessitates life.

Nah, the rules of logic can be programmed.

Quote2. That which is intelligible necessitates reason(c).

I'm not sure what you mean by intelligible in this context.  Unless you mean language, I disagree with this point. Furthermore, language can be completely unreasoned.

I think you're saying that for something to be interpreted meaningfully, it must have been made thoughtfully.  This is wrong.  Rock layers, for example, can be 'read,' and they were not laid down by any kind of consciousness.

Quote3. If, and only if intelligibility is independent of natural life can we reason(v) intelligibly about ANYTHING in the a-biological past.
4. We do reason(v) intelligibly about the a-biological past.

So something has to be intelligible, by whatever definition of intelligible you used for point #2, for us to apply reason to it?  You never actually defined intelligible, but the kind of intelligibility(from #2) that requires an underlying consciousness did not exist before consciousness.  I guess this is sort of like point #6 that you made... except with the opposite conclusion, which means that you're using contradictory definitions.  Please fix this.

Quote5. Intelligibility is independent of natural life. from 3 and 4
6. Intelligibility precedes natural life. from 3-5
7. Intelligibility derives from a life that transcends nature.

Let me know your thoughts.

:raised:

The troll is trying to be ironic I think. Don't feed the troll.

Quote from: "AlP"The troll is trying to be ironic I think. Don't feed the troll.

Sorry.  I can't resist

If he's trolling, it's a failure: I was a bit baffled, but that's about all.