How do atheists rationally know truth from fiction?
Debate Rounds (5)
Answering this question is the sole purpose for this debate. If you are unable or unwilling to answer this question, do not respond to this debate. Likewise, if you do not believe in reality, believe you make it up or deny it is objective or knowable, or if you do not know how to rationally know truth from fiction, do not respond to this debate. If you are terrified of cross-examination or madly in love with red herrings, do not respond to this debate. If you have responded before, do not respond to this debate. After all, if you had nothing rational to say then, you will having nothing rational to say now.
If all you have is "science", do not respond to this debate, for science relies on the your senses and reason, which begs the question of how you know your senses and reason are valid. Perhaps you can tell me, which is fine, but if the way you validate you senses and reason is with your senses and reason, you lose the debate because that is circular reasoning and circular reasoning is not rational.
if you respond in violation of these rules, you automatically lose the debate
Under objectivism we can make axiomatic presuppositions about the nature of reality. It starts with the axiom of existence, exists. This is the view that there is something, that existence must be be antecedent to consciousness. Secondly the axiom of consciousness. That existence (and existents for that matter) is identified by consciousness and perception through our senses and by using our senses and reasoning through Aristotelian logic we can conceptualise our world objectively. Thirdly the axiom of identity. Things are what they are, our world operates under causal law (identity applied to action), this gives us the notion that reality is real. Truth and knowledge of the world can be gained objectively by assuming these axioms, which need no justification because denial of them leads you to absurdity.
Under this approach to metaphysics and epistemology I do not claim to justify reason or the senses through reason or the senses. I make no attempt to validate them via deductive logic, so there is no circular reasoning for my position. Infact they require no justification at all because denial of their validity would leave you to a contradiction, such they are in fact self justifying without need of a god. In other words unreason or nonsense are invalid positions to hold to. Thus no God is required to anchor reason or the senses. I would challenge you to deny their validity if you think that without a god we could not rely on them or know things.
Taking all this together I deny the bases of either a skeptical worldview (the proposition that we cannot know anything for certain) or a mystical worldview (they view that a non sensory, revalation based, magical way of knowing is possible
How do you know reality is not absurd or that cobtradictions are bad
And you still did not tell me how you know truth from fiction.
How do I know there is a reality? My metaphysical presupposition is that existence, exists. This is because the denial of that axiom leads to an immediate contradiction.
Why are contradictions bad? I am not sure you are even asking a coherent question. But if you need me to explain briefly: if contradictions were possible, the law of non-contradiction would be both true and false at the same time, which is impossible. Thererfore contradictions are not possible. None of this requires the assumption of a god.
How do I know truth from fiction? I use my sense and reasoning, which as I have explained needs no justification, because any attempt to deny them leads to contradictions. They are therefore self justified. Of course you are welcome to try and deny your own senses and reasoning if you like and i will point out why you can't. You have surrendered your reasoning to presupp apologetics. Claiming a god needs to exist for reason, senses, logic etc to be valid is irrational, unwarranted, lazy, unsupported, unparsimonious, mystical appeal to magic.
I know for certain:
- I exist,
- I am not your God,
- Your God is false,
- Facts are true
We can know a lot for certain!
You now want to switch the argument from reason of as a category of human experience to my personal ability to reason. I have explained why reason (as a category) is valid without God and you appear to have accepted it, by moving the discussion on to me personally. Good.
So why are my reasoning and my own senses are valid. Under my worldview of objectivism an individual's ability to reason is driven off a process of concept formation which starts with percepts of the senses and uses Aristotelean logic to integrate and differentiate to correctly form objective concepts of reality. So for example I am personally not delusional because I cannot conceive of logical contradictions. You are delusional because you can conceive of logical contradictions, for eg that the divine suffered like a man on a cross some 2000 years ago.
You are arguing with someone else if you continue to ask me how I am know I am not delusional, because I reject the global skeptic "brain in vats" type arguments because they are impossible. If you want to pursue this question you should be brave and honest! You need to state (not ask me to justify) that my reasoning and senses are invalid and tell me on what basis they are invalid. Under my worldview "my senses are invalid" is a contradiction. Under your worldview that statement has meaning because the xtian God can make it so.
So lets test your position, how do you know you know Paul was not delusional when he wrote Romans I?
3 times I have explained that I do not use my reasoning and senses to justify my reasoning and senses. 3 times i have explained i am not a global skeptic. Senses and reasoning cannot and do not need to be justified. In my worldview they are self justifying because of the impossibility of the contrary. You have offered no refutation of this, because you cannot, because if you offer an argument it exposes the absurdity of your own position.
Just to educate you circular reasoning applies to deductive arguments not to axiomatic presuppositions. As I make no deductive argument there is no circularity in my worldview. I am afraid you offer nothing but a rehash of the xtian failure to grasp reality and sqwak endlessly like a Eric Hovind parrot.
You have failed to address my world view on its merits, you beg the question and offer no alternative and then attempt to declare victory. You have failed to address my question to you. You have failed to counter examples of things we can know without God. Just a total failure of your argument. I'm afraid you lose, next presupp parrot please.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by klaralein 12 months ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||6|
Reasons for voting decision: Con did not make a single argument. Con did nothing but insult the other person. And, despite have the BOP because he initiated the debate, did not provide any evidence or proof.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.