Are we rational or irrational?

  • Thread starter Thread starter tonyrey
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
T

tonyrey

Guest
  1. Atomic particles are not rational.
  2. If we consist **solely **of atomic particles we cannot be rational.
  3. If we are not rational we cannot know anything.
  4. But then we cannot know we consist **solely **of atomic particles!
  5. Therefore materialism must be false.
 
  1. Hydrogen is not wet.
  2. Oxygen is not wet.
  3. H2O (water) is wet.
  4. Therefore there is some intangible entity that makes water wet.
  5. That intangible entity is not meterial, since wetness is not material.
  6. Therefore God (the infinitely wet entity) exists!
 

  1. *]There are around 10,000,000,000,000 neurons in the brain, each connected to around 7,000 others.
    *]Therefore there are around 70,000,000,000,000,000 connections in the brain.
    *]Therefore the brain has irreducibly complexity.

    Nope :eek:. Try again:

    1. *]An atom has a really, really low IQ.
      *]There are roughly 14,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 atoms in the human brain.
      *]Therefore we are not dumb.

      Nope :D. Try again:

      1. *]Atomic particles are made of quarks and electrons, which have no color.

        *]If we consist solely of atomic particles we cannot be colored.

        *]If we are not colored we cannot be pink/brown/etc.

        *]But then we cannot consist solely of atomic particles!

        *]Therefore materialism must be false.

        Nope. Try again.
 
Spock said:
  1. Hydrogen is not wet.
  2. Oxygen is not wet.
  3. H2O (water) is wet.
  4. Therefore there is some intangible entity that makes water wet.
  5. That intangible entity is not meterial, since wetness is not material.
  6. Therefore God (the infinitely wet entity) exists!
Click to expand...
This is perhaps not direct evidence of God, which is not what was being argued for in the first place. But there is something being added to the mix that is not present in the essential and qualitative existence of Hydrogen and H20 when they are separate. The difference between mind and matter goes even further.

There are contextual qualitative and essential facets to reality that you are either all to willing to ignore or take for granted. There are evidently essential forms in reality that are not reducible to the essential existence of their parts, and while we can argue for a “functional” (not to be confused with essence) relationship between parts to the whole, we are unable in some cases to reduce the essential whole to the nature of the essential parts. This is evidence, in some cases, that the whole is in fact essentially more than the essential parts. This is evidently true in respect of the mind and its relationship to the brain. It makes no rational sense to reduce the qualitative experience of self and rational thought to the non-rational none thinking motion of atoms since they evidently have distinct natures. Its just as ridiculous as saying that mind is essentially a row of cog-wheels moving each-other. There is evidently an essential difference between mind and matter, despite the functional necessity of their unity. But of course you cannot accept this since your world-view would crumble otherwise.
 
I have to admit that this is a pretty weak argument, as Spock has shown. A better argument against materialism would be the fact that the laws of logic, nature, physics, and mathematics exist (because without them an orderly universe such as this one would be impossible). These laws are not made of matter or energy; you can’t have 50 grams of Newton’s Third Law of Motion or 10 joules of Snell’s Law of Refraction. One can’t simply explain these laws away as being invented by the human mind; they are not invented, but discovered. So where did these laws come from? Perhaps someone could claim that these laws are “God” and that it is just as rational to believe that they are the “first cause” as it is to believe that God is it, but the problem with such an argument is this - miracles.

Yeah, yeah, I know, you’re skeptical. “Give me evidence!” you say. Perhaps you should find the evidence for yourself. Look up “incorruptibles” on Google. Better yet, read Miracles by C.S. Lewis. Or listen to the episode of the One True Faith, “Eucharistic Miracles”. You have just as much of an intellectual obligation to believe in miracles because of these testimonies as you do to believe in weaker gravity on the moon.

My point is that the laws of physics and nature can be broken (and thus, are not Godlike). The question is, by whom?
 
Ichthys4121517 said:
My point is that the laws of physics and nature can be broken (and thus, are not Godlike). The question is, by whom?
Click to expand...
I was with you up to a point. But one of the main ways that physicists move forward is to find an exception to what they thought was a law – it tells them they got the description wrong and need to work it over. If one day we’re absolutely sure of the laws then none of them could be broken since they would just be accurate descriptions of how nature happens to be. Why it happens to be like that we don’t know for sure, and I agree with you that we can be mightily grateful to its Creator. 🙂
 
Are you rational or irrational?

Well, I wouldn’t know; can you be expressed as a fraction???:)🙂
 
MindOverMatter2 said:
But there is something being added to the mix that is not present in the essential and qualitative existence of Hydrogen and H20 when they are separate.
Click to expand...
There certainly are many of those. For example, the water is a solvent while neither hydrogen not oxygen are solvents. Water conducts electricity. And so on…

Take 6 carbon atoms arranged in the vertices of an octahedron (diamond). Take 6 carbon atoms arranged in a hexagonal format (charcoal).

The properties of diamond and the properties of charcoal are onbviously not the same (even though they are made of the same carbon atoms!), so Tony’s proposed “reductionism” is sheer nonsense (and he never gets tired of repeating it). We do not expect the reduce the properties of complex structures to the properties of their constituent parts. But that method does not lead to the “death” of materialism. It leads to chemistry on top of physics, it leads to biology on top of chemistry, etc… There is no need to present a god of “translucency” or a god of “hardness” (for the diamond) just like there in no need to assume a god of “opaqueness” and a god of “crumble” for the charcoal.
 
inocente said:
I was with you up to a point. But one of the main ways that physicists move forward is to find an exception to what they thought was a law – it tells them they got the description wrong and need to work it over. If one day we’re absolutely sure of the laws then none of them could be broken since they would just be accurate descriptions of how nature happens to be. Why it happens to be like that we don’t know for sure, and I agree with you that we can be mightily grateful to its Creator. 🙂
Click to expand...
So, what you’re saying is that the law of conservation of mass, for example, is not technically a law, because Jesus broke it with the miracle of the loaves and the fishes? If that is the case, I disagree. It is still a law, just a law that can only be broken by its Creator, as it should be. If God could not break His own natural laws, then those laws would exceed Him in power over the universe.
There is no need to present a god of “translucency” or a god of “hardness” (for the diamond) just like there in no need to assume a god of “opaqueness” and a god of “crumble” for the charcoal.
Click to expand...
But there is a need to assume a God (of some sort) who created the laws that govern natural processes in the first place. Who, or what, that God is is, admittedly, something we can’t be certain of. But it does seem reasonable to assume that such a God would be personal and capable of infinite love, since we humans are capable of finite love. If Hod weren’t capable of displaying love, for example, to an infinite degree, then He wouldn’t be God. That is, He wouldn’t be greater than us, as any God would be.
 
Toneyrey’s first premise implies that he knows fully what atomic particles are in every last detail from the Divine perspective. Though as humans we exhibit some vague aspects of rationality, few being really good at it, and those usually in some specified field, we do not yet know at a common level what atomic particles ARE though we know somewhat of how they behave. So, vague or wrong premise, most probably wrong conclusion. Also I doubt that such a low order logic as any of these is sufficient to contain the ALLness of God. I contend, again, that God is not a matter of proof by intellection by reason (there’s that word) of insufficient capacity.

Neither is God sufficiently provable by scripture, that requiring faith, an element lacking and even contradicted intellectually by many.

Imo, God is not a matter of proof, and neither is religion, as such, congruent with God even as an abstraction. As has been said, " the map is not the territory" and even those using maps, singularly or together, may still loose their way due to misinterpretation. As proof, I offer all the proofs above. 🙂
 
Ichthys4121517 said:
But there is a need to assume a God (of some sort) who created the laws that govern natural processes in the first place.
Click to expand...
I see no “need” for that. The properties of matter (STEM, to be more precise) can be inherent - which is the materialist point of view. The laws you speak of are our understanding of those properties. Obviously if the properties would be different, the laws (describing them) would be different.

The assumption, that those laws can be broken by their stipulated “creator” is without merit. Can the creator make a temperature lower than zero Kelvin? Or make a solid non-zero mass travel faster than the speed of light? Pretty much all believers agree that not even God can violate the logical axiom of non-contradiction (though I have seen a few dissenters, too). “Breaking” the laws of nature would violate the first law of logic, the law of identity. Could God create “water” with (say) 13 hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom? Apart from the fact that it would not be “water” it is physically impossible since the atoms do not have the necessary atomic bonds.
 
Spock said:
There certainly are many of those. For example, the water is a solvent while neither hydrogen not oxygen are solvents. Water conducts electricity. And so on…

Take 6 carbon atoms arranged in the vertices of an octahedron (diamond). Take 6 carbon atoms arranged in a hexagonal format (charcoal).

The properties of diamond and the properties of charcoal are onbviously not the same (even though they are made of the same carbon atoms!), so Tony’s proposed “reductionism” is sheer nonsense (and he never gets tired of repeating it). We do not expect the reduce the properties of complex structures to the properties of their constituent parts. But that method does not lead to the “death” of materialism. It leads to chemistry on top of physics, it leads to biology on top of chemistry, etc… There is no need to present a god of “translucency” or a god of “hardness” (for the diamond) just like there in no need to assume a god of “opaqueness” and a god of “crumble” for the charcoal.
Click to expand...
Again you are making a straw-man of Tony’s argument, since he was not arguing for the existence of God. Also, you refuse to recognise consequences of the fact that the whole is essentially more that its parts; not just in its appearance but also in its essential nature.
 
tonyrey said:
  1. Atomic particles are not rational.
  2. If we consist **solely **of atomic particles we cannot be rational.
  3. If we are not rational we cannot know anything.
  4. But then we cannot know we consist **solely **of atomic particles!
  5. Therefore materialism must be false.
Click to expand...
Holy apologetics, Batman! They’ve unleashed a proof on us!

(Adam West, in measure voice): They’ve painted us into a corner with logic, Robin! I’m afraid even our best training and equipment can’t get us out of this one. I’m afraid our consciences are now theirs to control!

(maniacal laughter from apologist)
 
MindOverMatter2 said:
Again you are making a straw-man of Tony’s argument, since he was not arguing for the existence of God.
Click to expand...
Tony’s so-called “argument” concludes in the triumphant conclusion that materialism is “false”. (He has no idea what materialism is, confuses it with reductionism.) He does not argue specifically for the “Christian God”, he argues for some lower-case, unspecified “god”. And that is what I used, so there is not “straw-man” argument here. I am arguing precisely against what he argued for.
MindOverMatter2 said:
Also, you refuse to recognise consequences of the fact that the whole is essentially more that its parts; not just in its appearance but also in its essential nature.
Click to expand...
No, I am well aware that some complex systems are “more than the sum of its parts”. But that does not point to anything beyond the “dirty materialism”.
 
Spock Proves the Existence of God

(Star Trek theme music is playing in the background.)

KIRK: (Off camera.) Kirk’s log, star date 123456789… Much of the crew of the Enterprise, including myself have retired to the Federation Retirement Home located on the planet Liverspot, in the double star system of Bush and Cheney. There, my old friends Spock, Bones, Sulu, Scotty, and I enjoy the ancient game of golf mixed with some lively conversation.

(Cut to the golf course. Scotty is busy examining the innards of a 23rd century antimatter golf cart. Kirk and the rest look on.)

SCOTTY: I dunno, Capt’n, I think it’s gonna take a miracle to get this thing going again!

KIRK: (Sighs.) Oh, alright Scotty. Just do the best you can—it’s not like we’re under attack by the Klingons. So take your time.

BONES: (Chuckling.) Some things never change, do they Jim. We get older, but the rest of the universe stays the same.

SPOCK: So it would appear, Doctor.

KIRK: Spock, Chekov was telling me the other day that you came up with some sort of proof that a Supreme Being exists?

SPOCK: That is correct.

BONES: Oh! I’ve got to hear this!

KIRK: Well…go on then…tell us. We’re all ears.

more…
 
tonyrey said:
  1. Atomic particles are not rational.
  2. If we consist **solely **of atomic particles we cannot be rational.
  3. If we are not rational we cannot know anything.
  4. But then we cannot know we consist **solely **of atomic particles!
  5. Therefore materialism must be false.
Click to expand...
Would this mean that we were created.
If we are rational just because of an overwhelming accident of formation would this mean rationality irrationally accidentally sprung from irrationality. Shouldn’t rationality be irrationality, as that was its source. Or maybe as the source is rational so is the product rational. 🤷
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top