Materialism (championed by Darwinists) makes reason Impossible.

The existence of God makes reasoning impossible, everything is dependent on the will of God and as the mind of God can not be known there is no basis to make decisions, even well known physical laws are not absolute as God can suspend them.
 
mutile said:
The existence of God makes reasoning impossible, everything is dependent on the will of God and as the mind of God can not be known there is no basis to make decisions, even well known physical laws are not absolute as God can suspend them.
Click to expand...

Lucky for us that no god or gods exist,we can make our own decisions.
 
A few off-topic and personalizing posts split to AAH. Let's try to keep that sort of stuff out of this thread.

Thanks
Tricky
JREF Moderation Team
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: tricky
 
TimCallahan said:
So, tell me, DOC, is this going to be yet another of those threads in which you come on like gang-busters only too disappear from the thread once the going gets rough?
Click to expand...
I don't run from any post. My time and energy is limited. In case you haven't noticed I am outnumbered by skeptics by a large margin. And some threads just run their course and I move onto something else.

And to prove it I invite you (and only you) to refer me to one post you want answered in any of my threads (that is already posted as of this time) and I will respond to it.
 
Last edited:
DOC said:
I don't run from any post. My time and energy is limited. In case you haven't noticed I am outnumbered by skeptics by a large margin. And some threads just run their course and I move onto something else.

And to prove it I invite you (and only you) to refer me to one post you want answered in any of my threads (that is already posted as of this time) and I will respond to it.
Click to expand...

"You" is plural, and you're addressing anyone reading this thread? I'd like you to at last answer my analysis of the Greek original of Luke 2:2 as forwarded by me before and broken down in minute detail here earlier today. I don't care if you know yourself classical Greek or not, DOC - put up or shut up!
 
DOC said:
"...if materialism is true, then reason itself is impossible. For if mental processes are nothing but chemical reactions in the brain, then there is no reason to believe that anything is true (including the theory of materialism). Chemicals can't evaluate whether or not a theory is true. Chemicals don't reason, they react.
Click to expand...
I quoted this from the OP because this is the topic of the thread that was offered.

Quite simply, this specific quote is demonstrably and obiously wrong. You need only consider the implemented computer programs that do, in fact, reason, adding the trivial assumption that they don't get souls when we're not looking.

Now, I've seen you respond to the computer example by saying that they are made by intelligent beings. Well, that is entirely correct. But it does not have anything to do with whether or not their chemical makeup can reason; the facts remain that computers are made of arrangements of chemicals, and they can reason. Therefore, there is reason to believe that arrangements of chemicals can reason. The additional fact that computers are made by intelligent beings doesn't change this; to the contrary, those intelligent beings can be interviewed to confirm that they only used chemicals to make the devices.

If you want to argue that chemicals cannot self arrange into reasoning beings, you have to make that argument. If you want to usurp this one, then allegedly you would be arguing that materialism is wrong because there's no reason to believe that chemicals can self arrange into reasoning beings.

Evolution, however, does provide reason to believe that they do, so this is equally wrong. That you personally don't believe in evolution is a separate matter--there is, in fact, reason to believe it occurs, and can produce reasoning entities.
This is supremely ironic because Darwinists---who claim to champion truth and reason---have made truth and reason impossible by their theory of materialism. So even when Darwinists are right about something, their worldview gives us no reason to believe them---because reason itself is impossible in a world governed only by chemical and physical forces."
Click to expand...
Actually, the irony is that evolution is the reason to believe it, but your argument against it is merely that there is no reason to believe it. In other words, you've said nothing of substance here; you've only managed to find a round about way of expressing your disbelief in evolution.

Or in other terms, there isn't even an argument here; there is nothing but an intellectualization.
 
yy2bggggs said:
I quoted this from the OP because this is the topic of the thread that was offered.

Quite simply, this specific quote is demonstrably and obiously wrong. You need only consider the implemented computer programs that do, in fact, reason...
Click to expand...
Because they are programmed by reason. No reasoning computer programmers, no reasoning computer programs.

Reasoning In --- Reasoning Out.
 
Last edited:
DOC said:
Actually Geisler has a PhD. in Philosophy and has authored over 60 books. I don't believe he or Turek are preachers.
Click to expand...
Unlike you, I took the trouble to look them up. I would normally post the links but don't believe it's appropriate to do your work for you. Two preachers. Count 'em.

BTW, anyone can be a preacher. Anyone. What does that tell you?
 
Posted by DOC

Actually Geisler has a PhD. in Philosophy and has authored over 60 books. I don't believe he or Turek are preachers.

Slimething said:
Unlike you, I took the trouble to look them up. I would normally post the links but don't believe it's appropriate to do your work for you. Two preachers. Count 'em.

BTW, anyone can be a preacher. Anyone. What does that tell you?
Click to expand...

One has to wonder why you won't post the links?

And even if they were preachers, that wouldn't affect the rationality of any argument they gave.
 
Last edited:
mutile said:
The existence of God makes reasoning impossible, everything is dependent on the will of God and as the mind of God can not be known there is no basis to make decisions.
Click to expand...

A perfect all powerful God could choose not to know the future decisions of his creations to guarantee free will. He has the ability to know them but he simply chooses not to.

I might have the ability to look up the answers of a crossword puzzle, but I may choose not to.
 
Last edited:
DOC said:
A perfect all powerful God could choose not to know the future decisions of his creations to guarantee free will. He has the ability to know them but he simply chooses not to.

I might have the ability to look up the answers of a crossword puzzle, but I may choose not to.
Click to expand...

How could anyone possibly know such a thing?
 
DOC said:
A perfect all powerful God could choose not to know the future decisions of his creations to guarantee free will. He has the ability to know them but he simply chooses not to.

I might have the ability to look up the answers of a crossword puzzle, but I may choose not to.
Click to expand...

Sounds like apologist-league compartmentalisation/wilful ignorance.
 
DOC said:
Because they are programmed by reason. No reasoning computer programmers, no reasoning computer programs.

Reasoning In --- Reasoning Out.
Click to expand...


So what? Are computers made of unreasoning chemicals? Does a computer have "mind"? If the answers are "Yes" and "No", then it proves that arrangements of chemicals can reason, and Geisler is an idiot.
 
yy2bggggs said:
I quoted this from the OP because this is the topic of the thread that was offered.

Quite simply, this specific quote is demonstrably and obiously wrong. You need only consider the implemented computer programs that do, in fact, reason, adding the trivial assumption that they don't get souls when we're not looking.

Now, I've seen you respond to the computer example by saying that they are made by intelligent beings. Well, that is entirely correct. But it does not have anything to do with whether or not their chemical makeup can reason; the facts remain that computers are made of arrangements of chemicals, and they can reason. Therefore, there is reason to believe that arrangements of chemicals can reason. The additional fact that computers are made by intelligent beings doesn't change this; to the contrary, those intelligent beings can be interviewed to confirm that they only used chemicals to make the devices.

If you want to argue that chemicals cannot self arrange into reasoning beings, you have to make that argument. If you want to usurp this one, then allegedly you would be arguing that materialism is wrong because there's no reason to believe that chemicals can self arrange into reasoning beings.

Evolution, however, does provide reason to believe that they do, so this is equally wrong. That you personally don't believe in evolution is a separate matter--there is, in fact, reason to believe it occurs, and can produce reasoning entities.

Actually, the irony is that evolution is the reason to believe it, but your argument against it is merely that there is no reason to believe it. In other words, you've said nothing of substance here; you've only managed to find a round about way of expressing your disbelief in evolution.

Or in other terms, there isn't even an argument here; there is nothing but an intellectualization.
Click to expand...

Example?
 
DOC said:
That is not what he is saying, he is saying you can't give something you don't have. If neurons don't possess intelligence then they can't give it-- that is basically what he is saying.
Click to expand...

So.. sand does not posses the capacity to run algorithms... and therefore, computers do not exist?

also... a single ant can not build an ant colony, and therefore, ant colonies do not exist?

And, the dissembled parts of an airplanes can not fly, and therefore, airplanes do not exist?

After all... you can't give something you don't have :rolleyes:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom