RE: An argument against naturalism
September 10, 2010 at 2:56 pm
(This post was last modified: September 10, 2010 at 2:58 pm by The Omnissiunt One.)
(September 10, 2010 at 2:49 pm)downbeatplumb Wrote: The flaw is that is just nonsence.
Its similar to the argument about morals coming from the 'ultimate moral being' and is just as fatuous.
My counter argument would be we can rationalise because we are evolved social creatures with problem solving abilities. these are all manifestations of the evoloutionary path our species has taken and down to some elusive sky daddy.
Of course it's nonsense. Of course reason is an evolved ability. However, the argument is saying that the content of our thoughts would not have a causal effect if naturalism were true, because thoughts would just be the effects of physical processes, and therefore irrelevant to whether the conclusion made was true or false.
(September 10, 2010 at 2:52 pm)lrh9 Wrote: Omnissiunt One, no arguments. I just refuted the conclusion by destroying the first premise. I'm not going to waste my time trying to wreck an argument that I've all ready shown to be bunk. The... should have to revise and present again.
Unless you're going to deny that reason is the best way of determining truth, I think we should attack other premises.
'We must respect the other fellow's religion, but only in the sense and to the extent that we respect his theory that his wife is beautiful and his children smart.' H.L. Mencken
'False religion' is the ultimate tautology.
'It is just like man's vanity and impertinence to call an animal dumb because it is dumb to his dull perceptions.' Mark Twain
'I care not much for a man's religion whose dog and cat are not the better for it.' Abraham Lincoln
'False religion' is the ultimate tautology.
'It is just like man's vanity and impertinence to call an animal dumb because it is dumb to his dull perceptions.' Mark Twain
'I care not much for a man's religion whose dog and cat are not the better for it.' Abraham Lincoln
