(September 10, 2010 at 2:31 pm)The Omnissiunt One Wrote: 1) For an assertion to be capable of truth or falsehood it must come from a rational source (see explanation below).
And we have the false premise already
When considering the truth or falsehoold of an assertion the means by which one arrived at the assertion is arbitrary, one may be correct in asserting that God exists even though the assertion has no rational basis, likewise if the existence of God is false, then the assertion was still false, despite the assertion being irrational.
Quote:2) No merely physical material or combination of merely physical materials constitute a rational source. (i.e. anti-panpsychism)
This seems to be nothing more than a bare assertion fallacy - In the day of this argument substance dualism was seen by many to be absolutely necessary, with our neurobiological knowledge we now know that rationality can be mechanised - Even in the instance of a computer weighing two compeeting options in a rational way.
The rest of the argument is invalid due to the first two premises being false.
.
