Argument #2: From the Nature of Rationality

[Jac3510]

Rational thought is only possible if there is a part of you that can make a fundamental choice.If you are simply doing as nature demands, then there is no such thing as rationality. Your thoughts are on precisely the same level as a falling rock. The physics may be more complicated, but in the end, it is just physics.

Finally we agree at least on one aspect, natural events are occurring and causing thoughts.

It is what I've been arguing the entire time.

They are, at best, completely arational.

Except for this part, this is your opinion because your argument is based on God, which in my opinion is irrational. (It's this part of your argument that is flawed that people keep arguing with you about, you keep saying "This and this, therefore this" and then pointing to the supernatural as if that's some sort of answer people can all agree on. Deep down inside you have to believe that if God exists, and if it exists even in a supernatural sense, it can eventually be proven with Science, and if this is the case, you waste your time arguing with people who will eventually believe (That's what evidence is for), however since we believe that there is no such evidence and there will never be such evidence we cannot agree with your premise.)

Just because things are physically happening that define you, me and everybody, does not mean that they are irrational.

After-all, our thoughts are aligned with reason, thus becoming rational.

My arguments aren't premised on God at all. If you are going to assert as much, you have to demonstrate it. As far as whether or not the supernatural can be proven with science, I most definitely do not believe that, not even deep down. Science is quantitative in its studies, meaning, it studies what can be measured. The supernatural, being non-physical, cannot be measured, and therefore, is totally outside the realm of science.

I have no problem with that, because there are plenty of things we believe that aren't in the purview of science. Every historical fact you and I hold is an example.

Further, I did not say that thoughts are irrational under materialism. Look at your own emphasis. I said they are arational. As you just agreed with me, unless there is a part of us that makes a choice, we cannot call the choice rational. If materialism is true, then determinism is true, and if determinism is true, then we make no choices, and thus, none of our "choices" can be rational. Arational, yes. Rational or irrational? Not in the least.

[Davin]

Nice, taking part of my sentence out of context, beautiful work, it almost brings a tear to my eye to see how many dishonest tactics you use to "prove" your argument. That cut portion of my sentence may be a prescription "any way you cut it," however for this to have been an honest point, you would have not cut it and kept it in context. Secondly, it's not a prescription, it's a description. Prescriptions prescribe things, my sentence prescribes nothing, just describes that one cannot be rational while using fallacies. I noticed that you italicized the "if" at the start of the sentence, because that is very important to the entire context of the sentence.

You're ignoring my point, Davin. You can assert that your statement wasn't a prescription, as you did in the original paragraph. Such an assertion does not make it so. If a doctor says to me, "If you want to feel better, take this pill," that is a prescription, even though it has precisely the same form as your description. This is a necessary conclusion of the word "wants" in your own sentence. Remember the definition of a prescription -- we start with a desired reality and give steps on how to get there. Your assertion that your statement is a description is simply wrong. You've offered a prescription, which is necessary, because, as we have seen time and again, the laws of logic, unlike the laws of nature, are prescriptive.

What was I prescribing in my statement? Because the statement was not prescribing that one ought to be rational, just that if they want to be rational then they shouldn't use fallacies.

Math was not invented by humans. It was discovered by humans. Same with logic.

That's it? Well then here's my equally robust rebuttal: No, you're wrong.

Then you obviously don't understand math. If your entire argument against my position rests on the kind of thinking that has math being invented by humans rather than being discovered by it, then I can't really help you, and I suspect the readers here are more than capable of either seeing the error in your thinking or simply siding with you on it.

Then point out my error in thinking by using something other than just asserting that I'm wrong.

Still, just stating things over and over again doesn't make your logic follow: logic is not prescriptive, prescription is subjective, logic is not. You can use logic for prescription, however that doesn't mean that that is what logic is.

You are simply mistaken here.

When we tell someone they are being irrational, we are telling them that they are thinking in such a way that violates logic (material or formal). Consider the following dialogues:

Jac: I know God is real because the Bible says so and the Bible is never wrong because it is God's Word!
Davin: That is irrational. You are begging the question.

Response 1-
Jac: I couldn't care less about being rational!
Davin: Then there's no point in saying you know God is real because of anything -- because entails a rational argument. You mas well just say "I know God is real."

Response 2-
Jac: Well I wouldn't want to be rational. How am I begging the question?
Davin: Because the existence of God is implied in your premise that the Bible is God's Word. You are assuming what you set out to prove. That's invalid. You need to restructure your argument to make a rational case.

Now, in both of these cases, you are issuing a prescription. In the first, if I don't care about being rational, then you prescribe giving up on argument, because (ironically, perhaps) logically speaking, if you don't care about rationality, you don't care about argumentation. In the second, since I want to be rational, there is a certain way I ought to think (or in this case, ought not to think).

It is simply impossible to avoid the conclusion that logic is prescriptive. If it described the way we necessarily think, it would be purely descriptive. It does not. It describes the way we ought to think if we are going to get call ourselves "rational."

Interesting speculation.
Response 1: I don't care if you want to be rational or not, I only care that I want to be rational, so I will not prescribe you to be rational... because I don't really care. The point is that if you want to convince me of something, then the use of fallacy is the wrong way to go. If you want to persuade me of something, then you would need to restructure your argument... you don't have to, and you have every right to not do it. I don't care if you don't, I would only care if you did, because being rational about what I accept is important to me.

Response 2: If the person asks how to fix their argument, then I will prescribe a solution, that is different than just a logical statement.

You consistently confuse conclusions with assumptions.

You constantly confuse assumptions with conclusions.

And more than just making a bold statement and pretending like I proved my point, I'll explain: you stated that there can be no naturalistic explanation for rational thought, yet you don't know how people think (no one on this planet knows enough about how humans make decisions), you're asserting some thing without evidence... that is a baseless assertion. See how it works? Instead of just making statements, I make statements that make sense while showing my evidence.

Wrong. Just because we don't know the mechanics of something doesn't mean we don't know the nature of what the mechanics will be. I don't know how a transmission works, but I can guarantee you that little green elves have nothing to do with it. I know that it has something to do with the transference of energy using various sized gears and classical mechanics.

In the case of human thought, part of the problem is that we don't even know what it is. But never fear, if materialism is true, we know what it is not, namely, something supernatural. Therefore, whatever thought is, it is subject to physical laws. Now, we know that every physical effect has a physical cause, especially on the macro scale (and we can argue about QM). It, then, is a rather simple deduction:

1. Every effect has a physical cause
2. My thoughts are effects
3. Therefore, my thoughts have physical causes.

I know (1) is true given materialism, because materialism, by its very definition, allows for nothing non-physical. Thus, all effects must be caused by something that is physical, which includes my thoughts: (2) and (3).

Now, this is precisely what I have been arguing the entire time. You keep saying I am making assumptions. I keep showing why you are confusing assumptions for confusions.

That is fine, but you're making assumptions about the the effects that are causing the thoughts, when no one knows how thoughts work. At least there are people that know now a transmission works, but there is no one who knows how thoughts work. If you wanted to be sure how a transmission works, you can easily find out by reading about it and testing it yourself, there is no such path available for finding out how thoughts work.

BTW, your transmission example is exactly my point: if you don't know, don't assert. Of course speculation is just fine as long as mere speculation is understood as mere speculation. I don't know how thoughts work either, which is why I'm not assuming how they work. I could not possibly care less if you want to continue with your baseless assertions that thoughts are either predetermined or supernatural, I could not even care less if you continue to not correct your argument due to your ignorance of how thoughts works, that doesn't mean I won't continue to point out that you're still merely asserting something without evidence.

So wait, what is this logic prescribing? After all it "is a perfectly valid logical argument" and you said that "logic is prescriptive," then how could this be "a perfectly valid logical argument" if it's not prescribing anything?

Because there is a difference in formal and material logic, as I go on to distinguish between (in non-technical terms) in my next section. You really should keep statements with their supporting arguments rather than separating them. I realize the separation makes it easier for you to advance your general theme that I am making bare assertions without evidence, but it is, to steal one from your playbook, a "dishonest" tactic, at best.

You stated that the nature of logic is prescriptive, that would mean that any perfectly logical statement would by nature prescribe something, the "perfectly valid logical argument" you provided prescribed nothing. Unless you can point out what it was prescribing.

You do like to go on and on without saying very much. You can argue that people "ought" to be rational because of duty and obligation, however there is no reason why everyone must be rational, it's just your assertion.

Then I would suggest, again, that you keep statements in their contexts. Feel free to go back and look at the section of mine you broke apart in little pieces. The entire last section is explaining how it is that you mistake assumptions with conclusions. Far from my assertion, that people ought to be rational is my conclusion. You can ignore the arguments in favor if you like, but that doesn't make them go away. You can obfuscate them by separating supporting statements from assertions and either ignoring or treating supporting statements in a separate context, but that doesn't mean I haven't thoroughly argued my position. It's just a matter of whether or not you are actually going to try to engage in my position itself, or whether you are more interested in rhetorical tactics.

Then point to how I took your statements out of context. I kept them as their whole sentences and responded to them in their whole sentences. Far different than you cutting a part of a sentence out and trying to act as though you were keeping it in context. I explained how you took me out of context, please return the favour.

You came to the table with very odd definitions of things like rationality, materialism, naturalism, logic... etc. that all depend on your view of the world, however make the words almost completely useless to use out of the context of this argument. Your definition of rational thinking is very different than the normal, common and even pedantic definitions of rational thinking, then act like your peculiar definition some how solidifies your position. It doesn't. Now you're arrogant enough to say that it's everybody's obligation and duty to be rational as if it's some kind of universal obligation that every one must fulfill? Sorry, but little babies that die after only a few months have no obligation to be rational, people with mental development disorders have no obligation to be rational, a man falling down a cliff to his death has no obligation to be rational, a person in the middle of the desert all alone has no obligation to be rational... etc. Obviously being rational isn't a universal obligation if there are several times and several people who do not fulfill that obligation without any bad effects on them or any one/thing else. In short, there is no universal requirement for anyone to be rational.

Wrong. I come to the table with textbook definitions of these things and argue from there. If you look at the title of this thread, I'm not making an argument from the definition of rationality. I am arguing from the nature of rationality. My definition is absolutely universal. I've argued that it's nature necessarily requires it to be prescriptive, as it is essentially related to logic, which is prescriptive by nature.

I think it's nature is objective and descriptive, not prescriptive or subjective. If you're going to continue with this definition, then tell me what technical term you use that means: a way of thinking that is objective and descriptive by nature and not prescriptive or subjective by nature? Because as far as I've ever seen by every one other than you, that is what rational thought is.

Now, if you had days ago answered my simple question about why gravity isn't prescriptive, we could have avoided all of these stupid rhetorical games. We can do this as long as you like. As I said in my introductory post, I have no particular reason for being here other than for the sake of discussion and, where possible, clarity. One discussion is as good as the next. It would seem to me, however, that it would be in everyone's benefit if we could stop the games and get to the heart of what I am actually arguing and where we actually do disagree. Clarifying terms helps. You can call such requests for clarification boring games if you like, but I unfortunately fail to see how six pages (which was the length of your last post pasted into MS Word) of misunderstanding my basic point is in any way less boring. If you are as good at this as you seem to think, don't you think the board would benefit by responding to what I am actually arguing?

You said "Now, if you had days ago answered my simple question about why gravity isn't prescriptive, we could have avoided all of these stupid rhetorical games" then "it would be in everyone's benefit if we could stop the games and get to the heart of what I am actually arguing[.]" The problem I have with this is that I asked you to just state your idea (getting to the heart of the matter) to avoid a silly game (avoiding all of these stupid rhetorical games), in the first place.

On to section two of your post -- the world being deterministic . . .

Now let's tackle your silly point about if the world were deterministic (I'm not saying that it is, this is just a thought experiment), that people aren't really making choices: When water boils, do we just say, "that's just the laws of physics?" When water freezes do we just say, "that's just the laws of physics?" When we describe how the sun works do we just say, "that's just the laws of physics, it doesn't mean anything?" No, some of us explain the processes of how those things happen. In the same way, even in a deterministic world, we'd describe thoughts and choices. In fact, if it turns out that the universe is pre-determined, then we'd all act exactly the same as we're determined to act. Maybe we'd refine the definitions, but to say that "it doesn't mean anything therefore stop defining things" just doesn't make any sense. We'd still define thoughts and decisions just as humans define everything. Why do you want to drop the definitions of things if the universe turns out not to be the way you want it to be? Also, why are all your odd definitions of things wrapped around your world view?

It is absurd to say that we have a choice if we are predetermined to act in a certain way. If the universe is deterministic, you've never chosen anything in your life, including what to think. It would be absurd to say a rock chose to fall. It would be just as absurd to say you chose to become a member of this board. We may use the word "chose" in some boringly conventional way, but there would be no real notion of choice in it whatsoever. Under determinism, absolutely everything--including everything about yourself--is beyond your control. And in that case, the entire notion of your "self" becomes questionable. A self is an agent. An agent is something that chooses. If there is no choice there is no agent, and if there is no agent, there is no self. In a very real sense, in a deterministic universe, you don't exist. Your thoughts and consciousness are merely illusory. There is no "you" doing anything. "You" are just a collection of atoms responding to one another in this or that mechanistic way.

Ok, then let us come up with some terminology that fits in all world views  for "choices," "decisions" and "thoughts" so that we can discuss implications instead of restricting common understandable terms in what appears to be an attempt to avoid those discussions. Or we could just understand that the terms used are very close to what we mean and continue to use them in order to have a discussion. Since I'm perfectly willing to use the existing terminology across the board, I think the onus is on the one attempting to restrict the terminology to provide replacement terminology.

Now if you'd just have an honest conversation, that would be great, however I don't think that you have the ability to have an honest discussion as evidenced by several pages of text showing your use of disingenuous (at best) tactics. I know that you allow yourself to just make bold accusations without providing the evidence and reasoning for it, while you question everyone else as if they can be held to a different standard than you hold yourself to, so here's a short list:

Do you think that personal attacks make your case any stronger? I hardly think questioning someone's "ability t have an honest discussion" qualifies itself as an honest discussion.

Think what you want, I've made several attempts to correct your fallacies that you've mostly ignored.

Straw Man: in your first post, "The worldview on which most versions of atheism are built is called philosophical naturalism, materialism, or physicalism." Already covered that this statement is not just unfounded, but an attempt to put "most" atheists into one box. Then you went on to express a very bad understanding of materialism and determinism.

Which has already been thoroughly addressed. It's not very honest of you refer to this as if it hadn't been responded to.

Here's a little quote from the sentence you're responding to, "Already covered that this statement[...]" implying that it was already covered and not me "refer[ing] to this as if it hadn't been responded to."

False Dichotomy and Argument from Ignorance: "If rational thought is possible, materialism is false" You have yet to construct a link to how this statement is true or even at least valid. Of course that may depend on your ever changing definition of rational thought covered next. However just because you can't think of other options, doesn't mean that other options don't exist.

I've constructed that link, both formally and informally, several times. Your bare assertion to the contrary is merely that: a bare assertion.

You've constructed weak links based on assertions about things no one on the planet understands, like human thoughts. You even clearly described exactly that it was a "False Dichotomy and Argument from Ignorance" with this little quote: "Unless, then, you can present me with a third choice, the dilemma for the materialist is this: is materialism on the one hand arational and perfectly on par with every other belief system or is it irrational and inferior to supernaturalism?" That is clearly a false dichotomy and argument from ignorance: "Unless, then, you can present me with a third choice[...]" shows that you think that until a third option is brought up that one must logically accept one or the other of the options you provided. Just because no one can yet think of a different option, does not meant that I should accept something.

Moving the Goal Post:
First Post: "so let’s define rational thought if it isn’t obvious to everyone. Rational thought is thought which is characterized by reason, and reason, of course, is the intellectual faculty by which knowledge is gained."

Later Definition: "However, that which makes a thought "rational" is a thought that stands in accordance with what we ought  to think given the constraints of logic, which is to say, it is what we ought to think following the normal intellectual process we call reason."

--Then later:

Davin: "So, by your definition; in order to be rational, one must be able to act irrationally?"

Jac3510: "Yes, of course."

So rationality went from one definition to another, then yet another addendum as the discussion went on.

The second isn't a definition. That should be clear from "that which makes a thought . . ." Rational thought is, by definition, thought which is characterized by reason; and since reason is the faculty by which knowledge is gained, and since knowledge is concerned with the justification of statements, then reason is concerned with what we ought to think given the constraints of logic. Since ought implies choice, then where there is the ability to act rationality there is by definition the ability to act irrationally. So I have never once changed my argument. I have been perfectly consistent throughout.

This is the problem with your cut-and-paste approach to debate. You've never stopped and integrated my position into a whole. I'm arguing exactly the same thing now as I have argued the entire time. Later discussion is an expansion on previous discussion. It is hardly appropriate to use those later expansions as evidence that I have fundamentally changed the argument.

You change the definition from "Rational thought is thought which is characterized by reason, and reason, of course, is the intellectual faculty by which knowledge is gained." to "a thought that stands in accordance with what we ought  to think given the constraints of logic, which is to say, it is what we ought to think following the normal intellectual process we call reason." That is a drastic change in definition, it went from something people can understand as objective thinking and went into something that can only be taken as subjective. That is a huge change, one could even argue the complete opposite.

Moving the Goal Post 2:

Jac3510: If there is no randomizing component [...], then you can predict exactly what the computer will do in response to your move--not because it is the rational thing to do, but because it is forced to make a particular move with reference to your particular position and its predefined value system.

So a computer isn't being rational because: you can predict what it will do and it has a predefined value system, got it.
A computer isn't being rational because it's moves are externally determined--that is, determined by its programming. It makes no will to make choices.

This isn't part of any of your definitions of rational, you made no mention that anything had to not be external in order to something to be rational. Is this yet another addendum to the requirements for rationality? I'll remember this if you ever try to say that a god created us to be this way while still trying to say that we're rational.

Davin: This is only true for some programs, Deep Blue for instance made choices that no one could predict. The program was programmed to adjust the values it was giving based on learning gained from playing against humans.

See? Not all programs operate that way so this must be wrong and computers are making rational choices right? The program was learning and making decisions based on what was learned.  This matches your first definition of rational thought right?
No, because DB's moves were not unpredictable. Just because no one could predict them doesn't mean the moves could not be predicted without enough information. Why? Because the moves were all determined by the programming and data, which is exactly what I argued before.

You argued it, but provided no evidence of any kind. The evidence I had provided was that the best chess player in the world, who could predict the moves of his human opponents, could not predict the moves of Deep Blue, making Deep Blue less predictable than humans.

Jac3510: Wrong. Deep Blue learned from its matches, and thus, given each game, it had a new dataset from which to work. The moves are always determined based on the dataset.

Oh wrong?, even though I refuted exactly what you said are the problems with a computer making rational decisions? Oh you're adding onto that, that because all decisions are based on a dataset then the computer can't be rational.

Davin: Wrong. Not just a dataset. Any way, how is this different than people basing their decisions on what they've learned?

If computers aren't being rational for making decisions based on what they know, then people making decisions on what they know are equally irrational.
Computers don't make decisions. They act out instructions. They have no will, which is what I have always argued.

Then what do you call the points where the computer must determine an action to take? I'm perfectly willing to use any other definition that you want to provide, however it seems to me that "choice" and "decision" are perfectly adequate to describe the things I mean. However if you want be to use "instructions" for every single thing a computer does, then I'm afraid we can't get into discussing anything that a computer does, because it's more than just "instructions" and requires much more detail.

Jac3510: Yes, just a dataset. It doesn't matter the source of that data. It could have been built in or learned.That dataset, of course, is acted upon by a library of functions, but the dataset is the determinative factor always. And it is different from what people learn exactly as I described above. We have the ability to choose. Computers don't.

Just a dataset really? Oh wait, not just a dataset because then you said "That dataset, of course, is acted upon by a library of functions" which means it's not just a dataset despite in your same paragraph you said it was. Nice job refuting yourself. But anyway, where has this goal post moved to now? Oh some vague and silly statement that humans can choose and computers can't. This is ridiculous because if computers couldn't make decisions, they wouldn't work. Any way the goal post keeps on moving for a few more posts after this. Later you said that humans can learn through being corrected, so I mentioned that programs do that as well to which you moved the goal post to that a person can be "wrong" while the program can't, to which I asked what the difference was... to which you dropped it. Notice that every time I showed that your statement was incorrect, that you added something on? I did.
And all of that has been thoroughly discussed. Computers don't choose. They execute instructions. You can run the program a million times, and if all the data is precisely the same, it will always make exactly the same moves that million times. That has been my argument from the first post, and it is my argument now. No movement. You can disagree with it, but you can't say that it has changed.

This is wrong, there are programs that don't run the same way every time even given the same exact data every time.

Wrong again. I left this in tact so that it would be easy to see where you misunderstood the basic argument. They are in red above.

So wrong, I responded with things that aren't just mere assertions but things that are real and working in the real world that shows that the things in red are wrong according to things that are testable, verifiable and demonstrable. Look up machine learning to check out the things that don't work the same way every time when given the same exact data.

Bare Assertions: "I have not read Conway or Kochen. There is nothing in QM, however, that relieves the materialist from the necessity of determinism." This a bare assertion as well as contrary to evidence. Not only does QM relieve "the materialist from the necessity of determinism" but it describes how it frees one from the necessity of determinism. It's a bad idea to ignore evidence, just because it conflicts with your beliefs.

And this is patently ridiculous. There are interpretations of QM that are both deterministic and non-deterministic. Just because Conway or Kochen says QM is non-deterministic doesn't make it so (assuming they even make such an argument).

I have read, for instance, Steven Hawking, who does think the universe is deterministic. Has he not read Conway or Kochen? I don't know. Could he be wrong and Conway be right? Of course. Simply saying, "There are scientists who think QM makes the world non-deterministic" is merely an appeal to authority, which is a logical fallacy. If you want to present any evidence from them, then feel free. Until then, there is nothing for me to ignore, and saying I'm ignoring your position is simply an attempt your part to color the debate.

I could understand if I made an appeal to authority that you could say that I did, however what I stated was that you had shown a severe misunderstanding of QM, not that "some dude said this so you're wrong." I invoked evidence, not scientists. Please understand fallacies before you start throwing them around. If you look at how one determines the direction of particle alone, you can see that there is no historical function that can be applied (nothing from before the particle determines the direction of the particle). Which means that there is no determined cause of the particle.

Taking things out of context: Already one covered in this post.

And shown how it wasn't out of context.

As shown, cutting a piece of a sentence to make it appear to mean something completely different than it meant inside the sentence it was taken from, is taking things out of context. If you could show me the intended meaning of the things I took out of context and how I responded to them was wrong, please do, how just the blanket statements you made just don't make any sense, as I think I had captured the meaning of the sentences, and responded to them in kind.

And many more that I haven't covered in this post, including the hilarious hi-jinks of avoiding the points I'm making to instead respond to things I've never even said.

And a mere assertion and a veiled personal attack at that. If there are "many more" of such high fallacies, then the implications are obvious concerning my capacities in argument. Of course, you don't bother presenting those "many more," which says much more about your own argument. You are only one step from sarcasm, which is the last refuge of those with no real argument.

I happen to think in all of this that if you would put your efforts into discussing the actual argument I have been making, we could have quite the productive discussion. You are a very bright individual, and I daresay that if there is a flaw in my argument, someone like yourself could readily point it out. As it stands, you have focused yourself far more on tactics and obfuscation, specifically in separating primary statements from their supporting details, and in the process labeling conclusions as assumptions. Were you to actually address, for instance, my argument for the link between rationality and choice (rationality->reason->knowledge->justification->prescription) we could get somewhere. As it is, you simply deny the connection, ignore the argument, and label the whole thing an assumption. That's all rather shabby on your part.

Yes, if you had discussed only what I said (or at least attempt to understand what I said), instead of your admitted assumptions ("My assumption is that you weren't using it in the latter sense[...]"), we could have had a much better discussion.

Truly, you must be a great hero championing the crest of arrogance on top the steed of assumption, wielding the sword fallacy, and protected by the armor of ignorance.

Well, there is the sarcasm I warned about . . .

Davin, you spend too much time talking about me and not enough time talking about my argument. Can we please keep this civil and avoid making claims about the other person's intellectual capacities, motives, personality, etc.? Beyond the fact that personal attacks are completely disrespectful, they don't do anything to contribute toward a productive discussion. Quite the opposite, in fact.

Because I had made several attempts to correct the issues of you responding to things I never even said, and am unwilling to have much of a discussion until you agree to only argue against what I say and to admit to when you're merely asserting things, when you're extrapolating and when you're using fallacies.

Case in point:

I said "Secondly, there is evidence done in scientific studies that show that the brain makes decisions before the people making the decisions are aware that they've made a choice. Now after reading up in the Libet experiments one could say that they're making the decision before they're aware of it, however this does little to show that people are making conscious decisions because their awareness of the decision occurs after the decision was made. Another point against the Libet evidence is that maybe people still make conscious decisions in other areas, however until we can test for this, it remains an unknown. So while I do agree that the Libet experiments and other scientific studies done on decision making aren't enough for me to accept them as truth, that is the way I'm leaning due to people attempting to disprove the studies without success. So right now the evidence is leaning towards the brain doing what it does and then making up the actual decision process as we become aware of the decision."

Because you had brought up decisions and something resembling a point around free will, now did you discuss this thing that had implications (that I pointed out) to your argument? No, you responded with:

Jac3510: "What makes you think I'm not aware of this research? That's rather presumptive on your part. The most this does is challenge (2) in my argument above. I've spent my time defending (1) precisely because atheists spend so much of their time talking about how important it is to be rational. If you agree that rational thought is actually impossible, then we can have a different conversation.

Now, if you would like to actually engage the argument, I'd be happy to have the discussion. I always am. This one is very simple. Without self-determination, "rational" is a meaningless word. In the deterministic world of materialism, self-determination is impossible, ergo, rational thought is impossible. The logical and necessary conclusion is that materialism is arational at best and irrational at worst. If it is arational, then so is belief in God and unicorns and evolution and gravity and everything else. There are no intellectually superior positions the moment we posit materialism. If rational thought is possible, then materialism is irrational and thus intellectually inferior to any kind of supernaturalism.

Unless, then, you can present me with a third choice, the dilemma for the materialist is this: is materialism on the one hand arational and perfectly on par with every other belief system or is it irrational and inferior to supernaturalism?"

Instead of inviting the discussion by talking about 2) of your argument when you had admittedly not focused on it, you said "Now, if you would like to actually engage the argument, I'd be happy to have the discussion." Hardly an inviting sentiment for open discussion when I had brought up something that you even admitted to relate to 2) of your argument (which you hadn't discussed very much).

Edit: Bad quoting half way through.

[humblesmurph]

Jac,

I've only been at this a short time, but it seems my idea that Christians and atheists can find some sort of workable middle ground may be silly.  This is an atheist board.  While your ideas will certainly have more of a chance to breath here than mine would on a Christian board, ultimately the results are the same.  What was settled with the first proof?  We did touch on the idea of cognitional existence, but that died away (I'd like to discuss that further by the way).  I don't think you came to any common ground with anybody else either.  

My point is that at some point, somebody has to concede that the other party might be right so that progress can be made.  You are so far from Yahweh with the two proofs you offered I'll be dead before you get around to the word of the Bible.

[i_am_i]

Please note that the extent of my argument here is very, very narrow. I'm arguing strictly and totally for the supernatural and against materialism. Once we have concluded that the supernatural exists, we can move on to have other discussions, one of the most obvious being God. Because, strictly speaking, we ought to establish the supernatural exists before we try to establish that God exists! If the supernatural doesn't exist, it is rather difficult to posit God's existence. But if the supernatural does exist, it seems at least as likely that God exists as that He doesn't, and, intuitively I think, most would recognize His existence is more likely (whatever He turns out to be).

Now this is more like it, Chris. This distills it all right down to its essence, what it is that you're postulating here, that the supernatural might exist, and that if it can be proved that it does exist then it's only reasonable to assume that it might be what we currently call God with a capital G or whatever He male with a capital H turns out to be.

Correct?

[Jac3510]

Davin, I have to smile every time I see one of your responses. I assume you type very fast. I've always been the one to offer long replies, and it is at the very least entertaining when people offer the kind of replies I've always given. I may not agree, and I may think many of your arguments are misdirected, but I do take responses seriously. I'll get to your post later.

--------------------------------------------

I've only been at this a short time, but it seems my idea that Christians and atheists can find some sort of workable middle ground may be silly. This is an atheist board. While your ideas will certainly have more of a chance to breath here than mine would on a Christian board, ultimately the results are the same. What was settled with the first proof? We did touch on the idea of cognitional existence, but that died away (I'd like to discuss that further by the way). I don't think you came to any common ground with anybody else either.

My point is that at some point, somebody has to concede that the other party might be right so that progress can be made. You are so far from Yahweh with the two proofs you offered I'll be dead before you get around to the word of the Bible.

Alas, some of what you say is true. It would go much faster in person, of course. A board environment is difficult for many reasons, the biggest of which being that you can't have a live discussion. We spent a couple of weeks on the first argument, which could have been covered in an hour face to face. I have spent time with atheists, some of which after months of extended conversation have actually put their faith in Christ. I'm quick to add, of course, that I've never argued anyone into the faith, and I really mean that. People change their own mind.

As far as what we can accomplish, I said early on no minds will probably be changed, but that's not the goal. We can still make a great deal of progress. I think we came to a very important middle ground in our first discussion, namely, an important clarification about starting points. If you believe that things are what they are in and of themselves, the argument stands. You don't believe that things are what they are in and of themselves. That's fair. But that is a clarification you likely had not considered before.

This argument, for all of its difficulties, has come to a similar common ground. Free will, at least, seems impossible without a supernatural element, and, at least, on determinism, we agree that all thoughts are determined. I go on to argue that determined thoughts aren't rational. You can agree or not. But the worldviews I stark enough that we can each decide what we think is more rational . . . do we have the ability to freely choose, in any sense, what we think? If so, that is very strong evidence of the supernatural, whatever that may be. A second common ground, I think, is that prescriptive language only has real meaning if we have this free will.

If nothing else, we have three very basic ideas then you can agree or disagree with:

1. Are things are what they are in and of themselves?
2. Do humans have the capacity to think (relatively) freely?
3. Does prescriptive language have meaning?

Each of these, of course, can be further debated. Anything can, but it seems clear enough that theism would answer the the affirmative to all of these, whereas philosophical naturalism would answer in the negative to these.

Next week I'm going to open a third argument. I'm going to go to the other extreme. Here, I've argued very, very narrowly strictly against materialism. Next, I'll put forward an argument that stands only holds true in the version of Christianity I support. Will it change minds? Absolutely not. But I think it will produce an interesting discussion nonetheless.

[Jac3510]

Now this is more like it, Chris. This distills it all right down to its essence, what it is that you're postulating here, that the supernatural might exist, and that if it can be proved that it does exist then it's only reasonable to assume that it might be what we currently call God with a capital G or whatever He male with a capital H turns out to be.

Correct?

Yes, that is exactly what I am saying.

[i_am_i]

Now this is more like it, Chris. This distills it all right down to its essence, what it is that you're postulating here, that the supernatural might exist, and that if it can be proved that it does exist then it's only reasonable to assume that it might be what we currently call God with a capital G or whatever He male with a capital H turns out to be.

Correct?

Yes, that is exactly what I am saying.

Great, thank you.

By the way, why do you spell God with a capital G?

[Jac3510]

Great, thank you.

By the way, why do you spell God with a capital G?

No great reason. Convention.

[humblesmurph]

Jac,

The problem is that you set up the rules.  However logical they may seem on the surface there simply is no incontrovertible physical evidence for God.  You keep stating things are what they are.  What you mean is things are what we call them.  You keep talking about what the brain can and can't do.  With all due respect, you aren't qualified to make those claims.  Your argument is well taken. However, randomness if a far cry from predetermined.  I know free will and rational thought are a long way from randomness as well.    Your assumption that materialism entails fatalism is controversial.   There are proofs that reconcile materialism and free will.  Those proofs appear to be based on established axioms and reasonable assumptions.  I think I posted one on this thread.  Again, respectfully, I am not capable of adequately presenting the argument, and I suspect you aren't qualified to refute it, not being a physicist and all.

I know I am repeating myself here, but this doesn't seem to be an argument for philosophers and theologians.

[i_am_i]

Great, thank you.

By the way, why do you spell God with a capital G?

No great reason. Convention.

But why spell God at all? It seems to me that using the word God in so much that you've written here indicates a preconceived notion that everyone who reads your argument will know what you're talking about.

You want to prove the existence of the supernatural, and you hope that in doing so your argument will logically lead to the possible existence of the source of all things in the universe, the source of it all. But first you need to define what that is, this force or whatever you care to call it, and refering to it as God with a capital G reveals a preconception that sort of taints everything you have to say, in my opinion.

Do you understand what I'm saying?

Let me put it another way. Couldn't I be forgiven for reading that you've said here and thinking, "Here's yet another person putting forward yet another argument that the Christian god exists?"

[dloubet]

If your thoughts are determined by the laws of physics,

Which they are.

then rational thought is impossible.

Which is nonsense.

Rational thought is only possible if there is a part of you that can make a fundamental choice.

Nonsense. Why do you say that? What choice are you talking about?

If you are simply doing as nature demands, then there is no such thing as rationality.

You give me no reason to agree with this absurd statement.

Your thoughts are on precisely the same level as a falling rock.

That's irrelevant. If the brain is performing the task of deterministically processing information and spitting out a result, and during that process the manipulation of the symbols fit the definition of rational, then the brain was performing its task rationally. It was being rational.

The physics may be more complicated, but in the end, it is just physics.

Yes, so is a computer. Are you suggesting that a computer cannot perform calculations because it's operating according to physical law just like a rock, and everyone knows a rock can't calculate? This seems to be your whole argument, and I completely disagree. As far as I can tell, rationality is just a manner of mental calculation that certain complex objects can do.

So just like a rock's fall isn't rational, neither are your thoughts.

The rock is not equipped to satisfy the definition of rational, but the brain is. Just like the rock is not equipped to satisfy the definition of calculation, like the computer is.

You're just wrong.

[Davin]

Jac,

The problem is that you set up the rules.  However logical they may seem on the surface there simply is no incontrovertible physical evidence for God.  You keep stating things are what they are.  What you mean is things are what we call them.  You keep talking about what the brain can and can't do.  With all due respect, you aren't qualified to make those claims.  Your argument is well taken. However, randomness if a far cry from predetermined.  I know free will and rational thought are a long way from randomness as well.    Your assumption that materialism entails fatalism is controversial.   There are proofs that reconcile materialism and free will.  Those proofs appear to be based on established axioms and reasonable assumptions.  I think I posted one on this thread.  Again, respectfully, I am not capable of adequately presenting the argument, and I suspect you aren't qualified to refute it, not being a physicist and all.

I know I am repeating myself here, but this doesn't seem to be an argument for philosophers and theologians.

You did, I also admittedly dismissed it without properly reviewing it. I would also like to add this to the document you presented as it helped me understand the concept of QM leading to free will:

Probing free will: A video lecture guide

It doesn't reasonably prove the case for free will, but does a great deal in falsifying the idea that materialism/naturalism must result in determinism.

[dloubet]

Well I looked at that probing free will article, and the idiot lost me right at the beginning with:

If you answered yes, yes, and no to these three questions, then you believe that gluons have free will.  

He doesn't get to tell me what I believe. I answered yes, yes, and no, and I don't believe gluons have free will.

I don't believe anything has free will.

I think his leading question does not establish what he wants it to. He seems to think that if you agree with:

•Do you believe that a justice system designed to impartially establish the facts of the case and punish the guilty is fair?

Then you think we have free will. I agree with it, and I don't think we have free will.

Will such a system punish people who are ultimately not responsible for their actions? Of course. Will that punishment modify subsequent behavior of those individuals to behaviors more suited to society? In many cases yes.

Mission accomplished.

The justice system is a way to modify the programming of those meat machines that engage in destructive behaviors. No free will necessary.

[Davin]

That first question seems to be both a joke and a demonstration. It plays off of the 1,0,1, rule (yes, yes, no), as well as appearing that the intent was to get you thinking about free will.

The videos are about an hour a piece, the article doesn't provide much while the videos provide a great amount of information.

[Reginus]

I haven't been following this thread much; mostly just your replies to mine.  I apologize if you need to rehash out something that you've already said.

Now, if a person's thought process is necessarily determined by the physics in his brain, then there is no such thing as a "good" or "bad reason" for anything. You don't really believe anything because of this or that; you "believe" it because its just the way the physics works. In still different terms, to be rational is a normative statement; we ought to believe this or that, whereas if our believes are determined, they are not normative, but purely descriptive; we do believe this or that.

What if the brain's chemical reactions work to cause the substance of thoughts to be (at least often) coincidentally in accordance with the universe's laws of logic (non-contradiction, for example)?
Sure, you believe something because it's the way physics works, but isn't it possible that the brain has evolved to gain an understanding of logic, and thereby have the capability to think according to those laws?  Isn't it possible that complex chemistry can interpret and consider arguments?

So how do we know that our brain structures truly have the capability to understand logic, and how do we know that everything is not just a chemically imposed illusion?  For one, I find it very difficult to imagine how we could be even be talking about logic and rationality if this was true.

So, as for the question of whether or not knowledge exists in a materialistic framework...  You said that for something to be knowledge, we must have a good reason for believing it.  If materialism is true, than even though are thoughts are purely determined by chemistry, it is still possible for us to have a "good reason" if in actuality are brain structures are rational, and can apply the laws of logic.  Again, the reasons for the probability that this is true if materialism is true are similar in concept to "I think, therefore I am."