KT45 Posted November 4, 2006 Share Posted November 4, 2006 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OvLXkAJ_bQ0 Okay so this is a youtube video and is Darfius' second proof of god's existence. His second proof is saying Atheist can't be reasonable because........ Atheist can't be reasonable 1. Reason is the mental powers concerned with forming conclusions 2. You can't form a mental conclusion without choices. At least one correct choice and one incorrect choice. 3. If atheist, most logical position is materialism 4. All thought is a result of chemical reactions you have no control over 5. Therefore reason isn't possible in a materialist world view because you are forced to think by chemical reactions 6. Other logical position for atheist is determinism (all decisions are inevitable results of events that came before) 7. Since it is inevitable, you can't help but think as you do.... 8. Both determinism and materialism show we cannot control our thoughts so can't be reasonable based on atheistic worldview Then he goes on to prove god God proof #2 1. Reason comes from a higher mind than ours 2. Can't be an finite physical beings like aliens because they are material as well 3. Source for reason must be inmaterial/ or must not hinge upon universe 4. Therfore source for our reason must be an immaterial, eternal mind 5. Being must be powerful enough to manipulate universe to employ reason 6. Being must be knowledgable to be able to do so 7. Must be good since it gave us the gift to reason ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- I'm pretty sure there are flaws right around his fourth reason for why atheist can't be reasonable. Our thoughts our reactions in our brain but they are cumulative. You get more than one. You may have not control over what thoughts your brain spits out but you do have control over the choices your brain gives you. Based on past expeirence you decide to choose the best decision. I'm not sure if I'm right so any suggestions? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mwc Posted November 4, 2006 Share Posted November 4, 2006 So let me see if I've got this right in general: Humans can't reason, but since we can reason there must be a god. That whole premise seems flawed to me (assuming I've got it right). At the very least the conclusion doesn't follow. Wouldn't one need to accept this god in order to gain the reason needed to accept this god? An atheist mind (according to the argument) couldn't do this on its own since it lacks the very reason needed to do so. So this god would need to impart you with the reason needed for you to choose it in order for you to gain said reason but now having said reason there is no longer any need to make that choice. mwc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Everglaze Posted November 4, 2006 Share Posted November 4, 2006 2. Can't be an finite physical beings like aliens because they are material as well That guy is an idiot. So, aliens are material yet "God" isn't? Bottomline is, all of these things including "God" are just ideas produced from man's thinking. To say that "God" exists outside the human brain and always was is like saying clothes existed before men even had the thought of creating them. The rest of what he's saying is stupid too. He's drawing conclusions in the same way he claims that atheists are. If by reason, he thinks he's the one reasoning, he must be conclusive in his argument which means that he must be able to prove that "God" exists, which he can't. Hypocrite. It's funny how they always think it boils down to "God"...I'll be damned if it was Galactus! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crazy-tiger Posted November 4, 2006 Share Posted November 4, 2006 I think his error stems from his 4th reason alright. AFAIK thought is the result of electrical impulses in the brain... doesn't sound much different to his reason, except that a different thought, a concious change of thought, results in a change of electrical impulses. The question is, do the impulses control the thought, or do the thoughts control the impulses? Or, and this is much more accurate, do they work in tandem? From that point on, his reasons are based on error... thus being flawed reasoning and a waste of time. Meanwhile, his "proof" of God... Reason 1 is, essentially, Man cannot reason therefore a higherpower gave us it. His conclusion is, essentially, Man cannot reason therefore a higher power gave us it. His entire argument relies on the conclusion to prove the conclusion... a nice, tight, circular argument that has no redeeming qualities. Now... can I have my 6 minutes back? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Piprus Posted November 4, 2006 Share Posted November 4, 2006 What is this clown attempting to do...dazzle us with his ability to make something simple into the incredibly complex? Based on his point 7, then, it isn't my fault I'm an atheist. I can't help it. So then, based on his premise that all reason comes from god, and being an atheist I cannot reason, it follows that god missed me when he handed out reason. Again, not my fault. Therefore, I cannot be condemned to hell as an unbeliever. Hallelujah. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chefranden Posted November 4, 2006 Share Posted November 4, 2006 Atheist can't be reasonable1. Reason is the mental powers concerned with forming conclusions 2. You can't form a mental conclusion without choices. At least one correct choice and one incorrect choice. 3. If atheist, most logical position is materialism 4. All thought is a result of chemical reactions you have no control over 5. Therefore reason isn't possible in a materialist world view because you are forced to think by chemical reactions 6. Other logical position for atheist is determinism (all decisions are inevitable results of events that came before) 7. Since it is inevitable, you can't help but think as you do.... 8. Both determinism and materialism show we cannot control our thoughts so can't be reasonable based on atheistic worldview #4 is one place that this argument falls. It assumes the ghost in the machine fallacy, that is there is something in you that is apart from your body/mind. Biochemical processes can and do make decisions all the time. A protozoa must decide what should and should not pass through its membrane -- this is food, this is not. I don't think that it can be reasonably argued that there is a ghost in the protozoa. The idea that chemical compositions can't choose is nonsense. As an organism becomes more complex the range of choices that need to be made are multiplied and must be balanced if the organism is to maintain equilibrium -- not too much of this, and not too little of that. The balance would need some sort of fuzzy logic to cope. The extension of this to human conscious thinking doesn't seem like much of a leap to me. If there is anything clear about human logic, it must be it's fuzziness. #7 Just because one may not like an idea, doesn't mean that it is not the case. Just because I may feel like a ghost in a machine doesn't mean I am -- remember The Man Who Mistook His Wife For a Hat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mythra Posted November 5, 2006 Share Posted November 5, 2006 4. All thought is a result of chemical reactions you have no control over A little green leprechaun man riding around on an orange and purple striped zebra yelling yeee-haww! There. Not only did I control my own thought, I controlled the thought of everyone reading this. No god required. The seven "proofs for God" are really amazing. Amazing in the sense that not a single one of them are true. I wonder if he thought anyone would buy his argument. Crazy Tiger is right. A waste of six minutes pondering this idiocy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dhampir Posted November 5, 2006 Share Posted November 5, 2006 I'd like to refute this, and maybe I will in a later post. But for now, I'd just like to pose a question that generally comes up when faced with these generic arguments, and that is: which god? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jauggy Posted November 6, 2006 Share Posted November 6, 2006 I think that the argument is just a play on words. I don't accept premise 5. In premise 1, reason is the ability to choose correctly between certain statements. However to be reasonable you don't necessarily need the ability to choose your chemical reactions. "Statements" and "chemical reactions" are not the same thing. So this means that some people are FORCED to be reasonable. They are forced to come to correct conclusions about the nature of reality. Therefore premise 5 doesn't follow. This would be true for me. Reality sucks. I would rather believe that my life is perfect. However since I cannot change my chemical reactions, I am forced to be reasonable/rational and see life for what it is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts