The Jolly Nilhlist (Part 3)

My Response,

You didnt answer my question very well. so I will define it again "what justifes your reasoning upon your reasons"? Why is this not question begging?

Nobody has yet proved that things such as rationality and reasoning require a foundation of the type to which TAG appeals. You are asking for a foundation that might not be required. Can you prove the necessity of a supernatural foundation?


All thinking starts off with presuppositions...If reality as a whole has no interpretation, then all you are doing is labeling matter with your absurd opinions. Without God there are no facts to be found.Some

presuppositions, indeed, are necessary. I presuppose that a square cannot be triangular. I presuppose that, within the same time zone, it cannot simultaneously be noon and midnight. That is, I presuppose the impossibility of logical contradictions. More importantly, I presuppose that evidence is the best way for human primates to discover truth. This presupposition is axiomatic—a First Principle from which to argue. My devotion to evidence, in itself, does not determine the god issue; I do not simply presuppose a godless cosmos. My atheism—that is, my lack of theism—springs from theism’s poor evidence. You wish to make theism, itself, your First Principle. Such is not an axiom; it is question beggary. It is not a principle from which to argue; it is a default answer that makes argumentation moot.

By the way, if you say, “Without God, there are no facts to be found,” I might as well say, “Without the Ethereal Cosmic Catfish, there are no facts to be found.” Both are meaningless.

You presuppose there is no God, so all evdience you look at will be interpreted without God, so you would doubt the Bible. I presupose God does exist...

I do not presuppose atheism; my atheism flows from my presupposition that evidence is the best way for human primates to discover truth. Christianity has lousy evidence to support its claims. If Christianity had good evidence, I would be a Christian. The same goes for Hinduism, Buddhism, Judaism, Scientology and all the rest of the 10,000 distinct extant religions. My atheism is rooted in my presupposition that evidence is paramount.


As for Richard Carrier I dont think his argument works. For a start he has to presupoose that there is such a thing as a "metaphysical naturalist". That again is his starting point, first principle.

Of course there is such a thing as a metaphysical naturalist. Metaphysical naturalists reject the supernatural and believe there are natural explanations for everything. Whether such people are right or are not, metaphysical naturalists exist.

But many other people believe that metaphysics is something totally diiferent than matter and chemicals. His presupposition forces his interpretation.

Not at all. He has examined the evidence and come to realize that consciousness and human rationality emerge from brain activity. That is, consciousness and rationality are emergent. They are emergent in exactly the same way a dwelling, such as a suburban house, emerges from bricks. Bricks, in themselves, do not possess the properties of a house. However, in a particular arrangement, a house emerges from those very same bricks. Matter does the same: Mere matter can be configured into a soda can, a wooden desk or a human brain, from which consciousness can emerge.

For one, the bricks are being used to build an "idea" that being a house. So we start of with mind, then matter is shaped in to the plan, and then we have a house repersenting the idea. What we dont have is blind random bricks turning into a house.The irrational turning into the rational, or impersonal matter turning into a concept off a house.

The point is not how the bricks get into the shape of a house; the point is that, when put into a particular configuration, brand new properties can emerge, despite the fact that the pieces themselves do not possess the emergent properties. Again, simple matter, in different configurations, can produce a can of orange soda or the human brain. The pieces of the puzzle are less important than the configuration thereof, because the configuration dictates what properties emerge.



This is the same with rationality, God is the source for our rational thinking.

Or maybe the Ethereal Cosmic Catfish is the source. All rational thought might flow from its Magical Supernatural Gills.



Also please tell me, Is the brain activity process rational in itself. Would you say then that our thoughts are controled by random chemical reactions in the head, which i do not have control over. So does this eliminate free will ?

Some brains are evolved enough to utilize rational thought. As such, rationality is a tool of the brain. The universe is not infused with rationality; the universe simply is as it is. Rationality helps us model the universe and reach tentative truths about it.

The workings of one’s brain are not random: they are shaped by genetics, environmental factors, one’s upbringing and other variables. There is nothing random about it. For example, people do not randomly speak foreign languages; they speak the languages they have learned. Of course, as with any part of the human body, things can break down in the brain. However, that is a far cry from saying the brain’s workings are random.