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.
The claim that God exists presupposes that we can grasp the claim that there is a mind, and that this mind has various knowledge and powers. But the concepts of a mind, and of knowledge and power, cannot be grasped without employing the senses and reason. After all, if you could not use your senses, including introspection, you could never grasp the concept of a mind, and you could never grasp the concepts of knowledge or power.
So, the validity of the senses and reason is axiomatic, and not only does the atheist start there, the theist does too. The only way to prove anything is by reference to the senses and reason.
Since the senses and reason are axiomatic, and since it is self refuting to reject them, they do not have to be "validated" - the very suggestion is a stolen concept fallacy. The concept of validation presupposes that we have accepted the senses and reason, and therefore that we can validate things by reducing things to sensory perception by a step by step rational process. There is no other rational meaning for the concept of validation.
Moreover, even if there were somehow a logical problem with taking the senses and reason as axiomatic, accepting the existence of God would not help resolve the issue. The idea of God is incoherent, and there is no evidence or observable referent for it in reality. How can positing an undefined, arbitrary idea be a logical solution to any epistemological problem? It can't.
Tell me, how do you know you are not deluded?
I know truth from fiction by means of the senses and reason, like I said. The claim that I am deluded is completely arbitrary, so it doesn't come up for consideration. I have no reason to entertain the possibility that I am deluded in the first place.
At this point, I think I have provided a rational response to your opening post and rebutted your concerns. If your subsequent posts are just going to contain more empty assertions then I don't know if I will bother finishing out the debate, it's not worth my time.
Frankly, your behavior in this debate is disrespectful to me, the audience, and the intelligence of the judges.
I then asked you how you know you are not deluded. I did not say you were deluded (though you are!).
I already responded to the question about how I know I'm not deluded. The question does not come up in the first place, because there is no reason to consider it. There would have to be some reason for me to consider the claim that I am deluded for the claim to come up, but there isn't, so it doesn't.
I just throw out the idea that I am deluded, without consideration, because that is what rational people do with an arbitrary assertion. If someone says "how do you know a group of goblins isn't reading Hegel on Jupiter?", the rational response is not to weigh the evidence for and against the question, it's to just throw it out. This is how I treat the question "how do you know you're not deluded?"
You then say you didn't accuse me of being deluded - followed, ironically, by the accusation that I am deluded. An accusation which is based on nothing, like the rest of the assertions you have made in this debate.
(Judges, I assume I will be getting the conduct points for this debate.)
ViceRegent forfeited this round.
But could not the deluded person say the same thing? But you reject his assertions, right? So much for it being aximatic How do you know that your assertions are not based on delusion, which is to say non-functioning senses and reason?
The fact that all knowledge depends on the senses and reason is evident when we reflect that the concept of knowledge is itself derived from the senses and reason, and refers to that which has been reduced to sensory evidence by a step by step rational process. Anything that has not been subjected to this rational process of reduction to evidence is not knowledge, since that's what knowledge is.
In addition, the fact that all knowledge depends on the senses and reason can be supported by as many arguments as you care to name. Any example of knowledge you can name will be dependent on the senses and reason. Science, philosophy, mathematics, history - all products of the senses and reason. The evidence for my position is beyond counting - indeed, all evidence for anything is evidence for my position, since anything that is actually evidence proceeds from the senses and reason.
The fundamentality of the senses and reason is so profound that even claims that do not qualify as knowledge depend on the senses and reason. For example, I demonstrated in my first post that even the concept of God depends on the senses and reason, since we depend on the senses, including introspection, to form the concepts of "mind," "knowledge," and "power" that the concept of God depends on. (You never addressed this point.)
You then repeat the claim that I may be deluded, which I have refuted many times. Again, the question whether I am deluded does not come up in the first place, because I have no reason to consider the alleged possibility that I am deluded. The question is based on an arbitrary idea, like the question "how do you know there isn't a group of goblins reading Hegel on Jupiter?" A rational person does not weigh the evidence for and against that question, he just throws it out without consideration. This is how I treat the question "how do you know you're not deluded?"
1. My opponent has provided no actual arguments over the course of this debate.
2. My opponent has dropped nearly all of my points in favor of repeating what he said in his first post.
3. His conduct has been abysmal since he has insulted me many times.
4. He forfeited the crucial round 4.
5. And he did not provide a single source for any of his claims.
In contrast, I have provided copious logical reasoning in support of my position, I have addressed all of his points, I have been polite (if blunt at times), and I provided a reputable philosophical source for my position.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by lwittman 10 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 forfeited 4 rounds and insulted Pro in round two, which is why Pro was awarded point's for conduct. Con's round one argument addressed the exact same problem that the round two argument addressed. Round two argument did not acknowledge Pro's rebuttal. Round two acknowledged only that Pro's round one argument did not break the rules set by Con. Pro's round four source was relevant to the debate because it further explained Pro's stance.
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.