Reason, as I applied the term, is an orderly, disciplined and purposeful exercise of the conscious human mind intended to integrate whatever we have observed or experienced into useful methods for dealing with the World / Universe we inhabit to further our survival or improve the quality or quantity of our lives.
That's an interesting definition of reason. I notice that in your definition you again presuppose the existence of those things to which I referred, and asked you to account for or justify in a materialistic, constantly changing universe, not subject to the control of a personal God, namely abstract, universal, invariant entities:
"order"Are the above materialistic entities?
"discipline"
"purpose"
"useful"
"to further"
"improve"
"quality"
Any time or effort expended in pursuit of such an ‘imagined’ FEATURE of the World / Universe would be pointless and certainly NOT a demonstration of ‘reason’ in action. In fact, ANY exercise of the mind which requires the admission of ‘unreal’ or ‘supernatural’ or other components that are not subject to any ‘rules of evidence’ or any other connection to actual experience or observation, while potentially entertaining or amusing, CANNOT be considered within the so-called ‘realm of reason’.
If I were to ask you how you would go about proving that statement itself, how would you do so? Have you experienced or observed every instance of the "rules of evidence" and every empirical observation or experience?
If you say that the statement is true by the rules of evidence or reason, then you are just engaging in circular reasoning, simply assuming what must be proved. Please note that my point is NOT to say that you don[t have any commitment to rules of evidence or reason, but simply to observe that your preclusion of anything supernatural from being part of the explanation from the outset is just a pre-commitment or a presupposition. It is not something that you has proven by empirical observation or reason, but rather it is that by which you proceeds to prove everything else.
Since this is a strawman of your own conception, NOT mine, I don’t see any purpose in figuring out whatever that gobbledy-gook is supposed to mean — it certainly means nothing to me.
The existence of abstract, universal, invariant entities has certainly been a subject of philosophical discussion for centuries, if not millennia, That you are unaware of this history is indicative only of your lack of knowledge of this particular subject, and why you have apparently have not even begun to comprehend the problem. You are an engineer. Try looking at the problem as an engineer. If you were examining an engineering problem wouldn't you at least want to familiarize yourself with the history of the problem?
I don’t require certain knowledge of “Why does the Universe exist, as it is, and what is MY part in the overall grand scheme of the Universe or the purpose of its supposed Creator ?” in order to live a completely satisfying, meaningful, purposeful and moral existence. All that other ‘stuff’ is well above MY pay-grade ...
That's fine with me. I don't have any problem with that.
But, then, I really don’t expect you to grasp, let alone AGREE with what that actually means, to ME ... You might try examining the concepts of modesty and humility for starters.
You seem to know a lot about what the blind, impersonal, accidental evolutionary process wants us to do.
How do you derive abstract, universal, invariant values of modesty and humility from a presupposition of blind, impersonal, omnipotent matter in motion?
Cordially,
Well, you didn’t pay any attention the first time. Why would I expect you to do any better THIS time ?
Post 117 —
Man’s ‘knowledge of God’ is merely the product of faith and the belief in some supernatural power that operates outside the realm of reason or the scope of man’s intelligence. That is NOT ‘knowledge’, that is the denial that ‘knowledge’ is possible.
Perhaps it would be helpful if you could first give an account of something implicit in your claim, which you take for granted; namely, “the realm of reason” itself.
How do you justify or account for the existence of abstract, universal, invariant entities - those laws of thought in the realm of reason - in a materialistic, constantly changing universe, not subject to the control of a personal God?
Post 186 —
The simple fact is, I DON’T. I saw you palm that card, Bud. When you refer to ‘ ... those laws of thought in the realm of reason ... ‘ as instances of ‘ ... the existence of abstract, universal, invariant entities ... ‘, you just swallowed your own tail in a Circular ( beggin’ the question ) fallacy.
Since this is a strawman of your own conception, NOT mine, I don’t see any purpose in figuring out whatever that gobbledy-gook is supposed to mean — it certainly means nothing to me.
[ Me again ... ]
It STILL means nothing to me. It’s STILL gobbledy-gook and sophistry. You haven’t illuminated your so-called ‘argument’ or shown any connection between what I originally stated and the moosh you’re peddling. In fact, you’re demanding that I do that FOR YOU. Shucks.
See what I meant earlier about not being able to have a meeting of the minds here ?
You presume you can suck me into conducting an ‘argument’ based upon the following formula —
If I were to ask you how you would go about proving that statement itself, how would you do so? Have you experienced or observed every instance of the “rules of evidence” and every empirical observation or experience?
If you say that the statement is true by the rules of evidence or reason, then you are just engaging in circular reasoning, simply assuming what must be proved. Please note that my point is NOT to say that you don’t have any commitment to rules of evidence or reason, but simply to observe that your preclusion of anything supernatural from being part of the explanation from the outset is just a pre-commitment or a presupposition. It is not something that you has proven by empirical observation or reason, but rather it is that by which you proceeds to prove everything else.
[ Me again ... ]
Wow. You shuffle the deck, cut and then deal cards ONLY to yourself, declare yourself ‘the winner’ and that’s the whole game. Except, you failed to notice I never agreed to play your game ...
You further ‘accuse’ me of lacking grounding in the nature of ‘the problem’, stated as follows —
The existence of abstract, universal, invariant entities has certainly been a subject of philosophical discussion for centuries, if not millennia, That you are unaware of this history is indicative only of your lack of knowledge of this particular subject, and why you have apparently have not even begun to comprehend the problem.
[ Me again ... ]
The existence of angels, fairies, leprechauns, Atlantis, Mu and numerous other ‘concepts’ has been the subject of endless ‘discussion’ for centuries, if not millenia. So what ? Does that in any way ‘instantiate’ them as ‘real’ entities worthy of further discourse ?
‘abstract, universal, invariant entities’ seems to be a particular fetish with you. Why do I have to sign up for ‘em ?
So, rather that continue this exercise in futility, how ‘bout we just declare a draw and call it quits ???
21stCenturion