Rationality And God

[surreptitious57]

This is an argument that I have heard made by Muslims on You Tube

A Godless Universe cannot exist because rationality is true and can only come from God

There are many flaws with this argument and they are as follows

It is a non sequitur because there is no logical connection at all between any of the three premises
The existence of a Godless Universe is not invalidated because God is the one source of rationality
There is no demonstrable causation between God and rationality because one is non falsifiable while the other is objectively true
The Universe would be rational regardless of whether or not God existed because by default anything observable has to be rational

I wonder what does the highly philosophical Mr Can have to say about the philosophical shortcomings of his fellow Abrahamists
Can he actually provide a better argument for the supposed causal link between the existence of a God Universe and rationality

[attofishpi]

This is an argument that I have heard made by Muslims on You Tube

A Godless Universe cannot exist because rationality is true and can only come from God

That indeed is an interesting concept since within my awareness of 'God', I (my consciousness) was forced to witness the chaos from whence it came.

There are many flaws with this argument and they are as follows

It is a non sequitur because there is no logical connection at all between any of the three premises
The existence of a Godless Universe is not invalidated because God is the one source of rationality
There is no demonstrable causation between God and rationality because one is non falsifiable while the other is objectively true

Fair enough.

The Universe would be rational regardless of whether or not God existed because by default anything observable has to be rational

The point being made by the Muslims in this case, is that things are only observable BECAUSE God formed it (universe) into a rational state of affairs.

I wonder what does the highly philosophical Mr Can have to say about the philosophical shortcomings of his fellow Abrahamists
Can he actually provide a better argument for the supposed causal link between the existence of a God Universe and rationality

I can't speak for Can, but I will quiz you as to why you think everything in the rational universe has to have a causal link. I've made the point before, and I'll bounce my idea off of you if you don't mind; God formed its own intelligence and then a reality that we can now exist within from chaos. Are there causal links within chaos? I don't think one could infinitely regress through chaos..

[HexHammer]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TIw1OPH6QvM

[Immanuel Can]

This is an argument that I have heard made by Muslims on You Tube

A Godless Universe cannot exist because rationality is true and can only come from God

There are many flaws with this argument and they are as follows

It is a non sequitur because there is no logical connection at all between any of the three premises
The existence of a Godless Universe is not invalidated because God is the one source of rationality
There is no demonstrable causation between God and rationality because one is non falsifiable while the other is objectively true
The Universe would be rational regardless of whether or not God existed because by default anything observable has to be rational

I wonder what does the highly philosophical Mr Can have to say about the philosophical shortcomings of his fellow Abrahamists
Can he actually provide a better argument for the supposed causal link between the existence of a God Universe and rationality

Dear Surr:

It was only by accident I even found you were posing this issue to me. (Or perhaps you weren't -- perhaps you were just musing.) In any case, I don't mind offering an answer, if I may. (In future, if you actually want me to know of it, you should probably include me in your post.)

As a preliminary, I have to say that I don't know what an "Abrahamist" is, and I've never met one. I don't feel inclined to associate myself with or defend the arguments I haven't actually offered myself, and certainly I have no interest in defending Islamic representations of things.

But I have a few reservations about about your critiques. Perhaps you can clear up the uncertainties for me. I'll take the liberty of enumerating them, so you can track them more easily.

1. Firstly, I should note that in your summary of the Muslim argument, you don't actually give it as three premises. It's hard to see, therefore, what you mean by "there is no logical connection between" the three premises you do not supply here. Could present all "three" of the "premises" to which you referred? That would be helpful. Thanks.

2. Now, secondly, I really don't see how you are convinced of your second critique: you assert it, but I think do not give us reasons to believe it. Perhaps some more explanation of that point would help.

3. Regarding your third critique, I don't think your claim of "non-falsifiability" is attached to any claim there. I can't see that it refers to anything but the word "God" alone -- which would be a misunderstanding of falsification, because falsification only applies to premises, not single words or concepts... and there is no premise specified there, nothing capable, then, of being "falsified."

4. I hate to sound critical here myself, but it seems to me that the fourth critique is circular. It essentially says, " The universe is observable (rational), because that's the way the universe is." Meanwhile it leaves entirely open the possibility that the actual reason the world is rational is that it's the creation of a rational God -- which is exactly what your opponents are saying. So you haven't closed off their answer there. In fact, you've nearly handed them the win, by admitting a premise upon which their argument would seem to depend -- namely, that the universe is indeed a rational place.

Enough said about the critique for now. I should let you respond to my questions, before continuing. Briefly to answer your query, yes, there is an argument for the existence of God from rationality. I can't recall a time when I made it here, but I do know of it. It does exist. And actually, there are several forms of such arguments.

Now, whether or not you wish to accept it is a different question. You may, for example, imagine that the rational order of the universe (its laws, regularities, suitability for inquiry) or the existence of the human mind (with consciousness, logic, identity and so on) are simply the accidental products of impersonal forces that, at some immeasurable time before the Big Bang, just fell into place, and happened to coordinate -- lucky us!

Or, on the contrary, you may entertain the thought that either the rational properties of the universe and/or the matching rational capabilities of the human mind more probably bespeak the activity of an intelligent Creator.

But which one you may choose to believe, that's up to you. I can't MAKE you consider one, if you 're not inclined to do so. And I would never force someone, contrary to their convictions, to say they believe what they genuinely thought was not true.

So what's next?

[Nick_A]

This is an argument that I have heard made by Muslims on You Tube

A Godless Universe cannot exist because rationality is true and can only come from God

There are many flaws with this argument and they are as follows

It is a non sequitur because there is no logical connection at all between any of the three premises
The existence of a Godless Universe is not invalidated because God is the one source of rationality
There is no demonstrable causation between God and rationality because one is non falsifiable while the other is objectively true
The Universe would be rational regardless of whether or not God existed because by default anything observable has to be rational

I wonder what does the highly philosophical Mr Can have to say about the philosophical shortcomings of his fellow Abrahamists
Can he actually provide a better argument for the supposed causal link between the existence of a God Universe and rationality

The universe either has a conscious source or is the result of accident. If it is the result of accident then the logic of the universal laws of creation we define as rational are also the result of accident. In your opinion how can the laws of creation like gravity or mathematics appear by accident for no purpose? If the laws of creation cannot appear by accident the only other possibility is a Source in which these laws are known and can be manifested as a functioning universe serving a purpose denied by the World..

[surreptitious57]

The Muslim argument more specifically is that God created the Universe and therefore human beings
Since God is rational then everything he created was rational which obviously includes human beings
And so when a human being is using their rational mind they are using that what God actually gave them
Atheism is therefore irrational as their minds were created by a rational God that they do not believe in

There are two unsupported assertions here : God created the Universe and he also created rationality
The latter begs the question of who is responsible for our irrational thinking if God is entirely rational

Now I have no dog in this fight but simply find this argument lacking in rigour to be deemed sufficiently valid
Also any argument pertaining to Gods existence will have this problem as they are all basically non falsifiable

[Immanuel Can]

The Muslim argument more specifically is that God created the Universe and therefore human beings
Since God is rational then everything he created was rational which obviously includes human beings
And so when a human being is using their rational mind they are using that what God actually gave them
Atheism is therefore irrational as their minds were created by a rational God that they do not believe in

THIS is their argument? THIS is what they think amounts to a case for the existence of God, via rationality?

You're right, then. If that's what they say, then they are unfamiliar with syllogisms, and don't build from premises to conclusions. But I have a hard time believing they're actually all this bad at logic...however, if this is the argument you've encountered, in the form they would present it, then I have to side with you; it's not an argument anyone should accept.

There are two unsupported assertions here : God created the Universe and he also created rationality

More than two.

The latter begs the question of who is responsible for our irrational thinking if God is entirely rational

"Begs the question" usually refers to when an argument assumes a conclusion as part of its premises. I can see ways in which this version of the argument does that. But I think you mean, "could be questioned by raising the issue of..." rather than "begs the question," in this case, don't you?

Now I have no dog in this fight but simply find this argument lacking in rigour to be deemed sufficiently valid

Well, in this case, as you present it, you're right. The argument above lacks logic and rigour, and is not valid. But that's a critique of form, not substance. They might be right, even if the argument they are offering is not a good one, because it is quite possible for people to frame a bad argument for a correct conclusion.

Also any argument pertaining to Gods existence will have this problem as they are all basically non falsifiable

Again, I'm not sure I understand your claim here.

[surreptitious57]

For me arguments about God are non falsifiable because the metaphysical cannot be proven or disproven
God is presented as being outside of time and space so his existence is not something that can be verified

The metaphysical is a problem as a believer can without evidence assume its existence as the first premise of any argument for God
That would be valid but valid premises are not conditional on empirical reality but simply the argument form itself and nothing else
A valid argument for something that is supposed to actually exist is insufficiently rigorous but unfortunately this is as far as it can go

[Immanuel Can]

For me arguments about God are non falsifiable because the metaphysical cannot be proven or disproven

I can't figure out what you mean by "the metaphysical." It seems to me you're using it as a synonym for "the fictitious," or something similar to that. Am I right?

My suggestion would be that there are things that are (in a more precise sense) metaphysical, yet are real and capable of evidence. Our personalities would be one such thing. "Personality" is not a physical thing. Surr57 cannot be divided into parts, weighed on a scale, measured in a graduated cylinder, or pinched in Vernier callipers. Your body can, and your brain can, but your consciousness, your person, your identity, the part of you that is aware and is forming messages by means of your fingers on a keyboard, this thing is entirely metaphysical. Yet, as you type, it is having physical results, and is recognizable by me, and has real and important impact on the world.

So it is evident that something metaphysical is neither necessarily unreal nor incapable of rational and even empirical detection.

I believe it's evident, therefore, that the "non-falsifiability" point, as you explain it above, isn't correct.

God is presented as being outside of time and space so his existence is not something that can be verified

Well, that's surely very much an odd or minority view.

Not even Deism agrees that what you claim here is true, and certainly Theism does not. Only something like Spinoza's Panentheism, or perhaps the NOMA hypothesis would conceivably assert it. All other God (or "god") beliefs maintain that it's not true: the works of God are detectable and evident. And all religions that believe in the possibility of Divine self-revelation would certainly deny it. They maintain that not only CAN God reveal Himself empirically, but also that He HAS done so.

So your view is not only one the Muslims would deny, but also one practically everyone else would, too: Christians, Jews, Deists and pantheists alike. Even agnostics base their uncertainty on the presumption that God should be, if He exists, manifested in the empirical world, as well as the supernatural realm. (Indeed, that they do not perceive Him to be so, or perceive Him only to be ambiguously so, is the very basis of their agnosticism. But their expectation that He should be is foundational for them.) So I have to think you've perhaps misunderstood the normal claims about God made by most traditions. You appear to be saying they posit the existence of only a non-evidentiary, non-materially-involved deity...and they do not.

P.S. -- You are continuing to reply without using the "reply" feature, so I don't receive any automatic alert of the existence of your messages. This is a curious habit, to me. Don't you want me to have a chance to answer the questions you express about my beliefs? You did use my name, in your original message, and it seemed to me then that you wanted me actually to answer you...

My view would be that we are having a conversation. I'm not out to "get" you for having invoked my name in your original message. But if this exchange is, in your view, something else, then I'm not compelling you to go on. I trust you understand that conversation is a privilege, not a right; I have no interest in forcing you to discuss what you feel uncomfortable discussing.

[Dubious]

This is an argument that I have heard made by Muslims on You Tube

A Godless Universe cannot exist because rationality is true and can only come from God

This as stated is in itself an irrational argument since rationality as incorporated in humans is itself highly questionable and puts god in a very dubious position as to how rationality is defined. There is also the conclusion in this position that atheists by their non-belief are inherently irrational.

Theism in every way suffers from every kind of error. It's the ONE system devised by humans built on an encyclopedia of fallacies from A to Z.

Paradoxically, by a judicious use of such fallacies it's possible to create a fairly coherent system.

[attofishpi]

This is an argument that I have heard made by Muslims on You Tube

A Godless Universe cannot exist because rationality is true and can only come from God

This as stated is in itself an irrational argument since rationality as incorporated in humans is itself highly questionable and puts god in a very dubious position as to how rationality is defined. There is also the conclusion in this position that atheists by their non-belief are inherently irrational.

Theism in every way suffers from every kind of error. It's the ONE system devised by humans built on an encyclopedia of fallacies from A to Z.

Paradoxically, by a judicious use of such fallacies it's possible to create a fairly coherent system.

There is nothing irrational by not believing in something. The only error atheism suffers from is that all of them (atheists) are wrong.

[Immanuel Can]

Theism in every way suffers from every kind of error. It's the ONE system devised by humans built on an encyclopedia of fallacies from A to Z.

There is nothing irrational by not believing in something. The only error atheism suffers from is that all of them (atheists) are wrong.

Well, both arguments would be much benefitted by the addition of something specified in the OP -- reasons, or "rationality." Instead of throwing out unsupported conclusions (which can come across as mere rhetoric, or worse, just a gratuitous insult) we perhaps ought to supply the supporting reasons. It's on those reasons that our judgments will be fairly assessed as warranted or not, right?

So, if "theism suffers from every kind of error," then one ought to give examples that prove the case. And if "all atheists are wrong," then we ought to be able to say why they are.

If not, are we not in danger of being seen as merely blowing smoke?

[RCSaunders]

The universe either has a conscious source or is the result of accident.

I know you do not mean it as such, because you believe it is so, but it is actually a false dichotomy, to say a thing must be either A or B, when A and B do not exhaust the field of possibilities. It assumes, for example, a beginning of the universe. For those who use the word universe as identical with existence to mean, "all there is," there is no beginning of the universe, even if in its present manifestation it changed from some other form (which is unlikely). Your false dichotomy would also make the universe contingent on something else, but if the universe is everything, there is no, "something else," and there is no reason to suppose the universe requires something else for its existence.

If it is the result of accident then the logic of the universal laws of creation we define as rational are also the result of accident.

How do you avoid the conclusion that whatever you suggest as the "source" for the universe is not itself an accident? Aren't you using the word accident to mean something that is or happens for no reason? Wouldn't your "source" have to be something that is or happened for no reason?

... how can the laws of creation like gravity or mathematics appear by accident for no purpose?
If the laws of creation cannot appear by accident the only other possibility is a Source in which these laws are known and can be manifested as a functioning universe serving a purpose denied by the World...?

Gravity is a physical phenomenon discovered by the physical sciences. Mathematics is a method of identification and description like, like language, invented by human beings. Mathematics has no ontological existence, i.e. it is not part of, "creation." The universe is no more mathematical (just because some of it can be described in mathematical terms) than it is Greek or Chinese (because it can be described in those languages). There are no purposes except those of human beings. There is nothing teleological about existence independent from human consciousness.

I have no objection to your believing in a creator, if you do. I don't even object to your arguments, but they are problematic and I think it might be useful to some to see there is another way of seeing these things that has escaped you.

[Dubious]

This is an argument that I have heard made by Muslims on You Tube

A Godless Universe cannot exist because rationality is true and can only come from God

This as stated is in itself an irrational argument since rationality as incorporated in humans is itself highly questionable and puts god in a very dubious position as to how rationality is defined. There is also the conclusion in this position that atheists by their non-belief are inherently irrational.

Theism in every way suffers from every kind of error. It's the ONE system devised by humans built on an encyclopedia of fallacies from A to Z.

Paradoxically, by a judicious use of such fallacies it's possible to create a fairly coherent system.

There is nothing irrational by not believing in something. The only error atheism suffers from is that all of them (atheists) are wrong.

Is that all there's to it. Gee, I didn't know. I'm so glad someone set me straight!

[Nick_A]

RCSaunders

How do you avoid the conclusion that whatever you suggest as the "source" for the universe is not itself an accident? Aren't you using the word accident to mean something that is or happens for no reason? Wouldn't your "source" have to be something that is or happened for no reason?

I begin with the Source in the same way Plotinus described it as the ONE. The ONE IS so is outside the limitations of time and space. The universe is the body of God. It is a functioning process within time and space. The ONE supplies the energy necessary for the body of God to function.

https://www.iep.utm.edu/plotinus/

The 'concept' of the One is not, properly speaking, a concept at all, since it is never explicitly defined by Plotinus, yet it is nevertheless the foundation and grandest expression of his philosophy. Plotinus does make it clear that no words can do justice to the power of the One; even the name, 'the One,' is inadequate, for naming already implies discursive knowledge, and since discursive knowledge divides or separates its objects in order to make them intelligible, the One cannot be known through the process of discursive reasoning (Ennead VI.9.4). Knowledge of the One is achieved through the experience of its 'power' (dunamis) and its nature, which is to provide a 'foundation' (arkhe) and location (topos) for all existents (VI.9.6). The 'power' of the One is not a power in the sense of physical or even mental action; the power of the One, as Plotinus speaks of it, is to be understood as the only adequate description of the 'manifestation' of a supreme principle that, by its very nature, transcends all predication and discursive understanding. This 'power,' then, is capable of being experienced, or known, only through contemplation (theoria), or the purely intellectual 'vision' of the source of all things. The One transcends all beings, and is not itself a being, precisely because all beings owe their existence and subsistence to their eternal contemplation of the dynamic manifestation(s) of the One. The One can be said to be the 'source' of all existents only insofar as every existent naturally and (therefore) imperfectly contemplates the various aspects of the One, as they are extended throughout the cosmos, in the form of either sensible or intelligible objects or existents. The perfect contemplation of the One, however, must not be understood as a return to a primal source; for the One is not, strictly speaking, a source or a cause, but rather the eternally present possibility -- or active making-possible -- of all existence, of Being (V.2.1). According to Plotinus, the unmediated vision of the 'generative power' of the One, to which existents are led by the Intelligence (V.9.2), results in an ecstatic dance of inspiration, not in a satiated torpor (VI.9.; for it is the nature of the One to impart fecundity to existents -- that is to say: the One, in its regal, indifferent capacity as undiminishable potentiality of Being, permits both rapt contemplation and ecstatic, creative extension. These twin poles, this 'stanchion,' is the manifested framework of existence which the One produces, effortlessly (V.1.6). The One, itself, is best understood as the center about which the 'stanchion,' the framework of the cosmos, is erected (VI.9.. This 'stanchion' or framework is the result of the contemplative activity of the Intelligence.

Science says the universe is dying. If so, what brings it back to life?

https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... ng-slowly/

Newton's first law states that every object will remain at rest or in uniform motion in a straight line unless compelled to change its state by the action of an external force. This is normally taken as the definition of inertia. The key point here is that if there is no net force acting on an object (if all the external forces cancel each other out) then the object will maintain a constant velocity. If that velocity is zero, then the object remains at rest. If an external force is applied, the velocity will change because of the force.

What supplies this new force which brings the universe back to life once it dies if you believe it is eternal? It cannot be an accident.

The universe cannot create itself. Yet if it is the body of God functioning within the ONE, then it can be considered the breath of God..If the universe is slowly dying I cannot see any other way to live again other then as the “breath of God.”

Exhalation is creation and inhalation is the return to the quality of being from which it devolved. It is an eternal cycle.