If we exist in an infinite reality then rationality is a human construct.
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
If we don't live in an infinite reality, rationality is a human construct. What's your point? Humans began reasoning first and then came the science of reason.
Why do you try to reason with anyone?
Why do you try not to?
My subjective perogative. Live by my own rules.
He was making a point ray. But to answer your question, for survival.
"My subjective perogative (sic). Live by my own rules."
Rules that ignore the most objective methods of understanding reality? Well if it makes you happy to delude yourself that is of course your right. but all religious arguments for moral ascendancy, end right there. As do any claims for your beliefs being remotely objectively valid.
Huh! *looking around* Who me? Sure I'll have some raisins. Can I get a box for my friend Tin Man too? It's not every day I pass a raisin man in this infinite reality of rumor and great confusion as to where things really are. And nobody will really know, where lie those little things with a sort of rapier work base that has an attachment that was left in the open just the night before.
I want raisins too, damn it.
doG: I guess you gotta ask catholicray the next time he pops into our existence. Here's a handfull to keep you busy until then.::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
How can the claim in the OP be proved true or false?
I would like some more clarity, as I think it is somewhat vague and/or incomplete.
When is rationality not a human construct?
Use reason for this one Ray.
You, being religious, validates evolution.
"He was making a point ray. But to answer your question, for survival."
His point and your suggestion utilize the human construct. I see no reason to consent to your subjective suggestions. Even if I were willing to consent to your "rationality", survival is no evidence for the necessity to consent to the use of any human construct. Try as you might to survive, you will die. Do you suggest I ought to fear death? Why? I see nothing objective about your argument.
"I see no reason to consent to your subjective suggestions."
You consent without knowing Ray...LOL.
catholicray" Yes so clear....
In the end what is the difference between life and death in the scheme of things but a location in the fantasy of time. Popping in and out of existence until eternity itself fades away or the universe separates from itself in its never ending expansion and another takes its place to begin the process again. Where is this rationality in the particles of dust that randomly gather to form cosmic dust bunnies and why do they turn blue, is it merely the collisions of hydrogen and oxygen atoms or is there a deeper secret independent of all known and imagined possibilities? Death is as much a part of life as breathing and then the atoms scatter in a mindless whim to be used once again and the process continues until it stops.
"your suggestion utilize the human construct. I see no reason to consent to your subjective suggestions. "
Asserting that rational methods of reasoning are more likely to reflect objective reality is not a subjective assertion, quite the opposite. I certainly see no reason to accept claims asserted on naught but faith in bronze age superstitions, even if logic and science didn't exist, and were not successful methods of objectively explaining reality. Which is a more salient point of course, and one that theists always try so desperately to ignore, as you're doing here, whilst attacking objective methods like science and logic, but only of course when they don't reflect results that theists long for. As if we won't notice the double standard of sending your messages from a computer via internet powered by electricity all of which are achieved by some of the innumerable successes of objectives methods such as science in advancing technology via a clearer understanding of reality.
You even stated in another thread you had a rational basis for your belief, now within 24 hours you are decrying all rationality as unnecessary, that's the sort of inconsistent mental contortions that theists so often seem not to experience any cognitive dissonance over. I can only marvel at thinking that can dishonestly compartmentalise facts in such a conveniently ad hoc fashion.
"You, being religious, validates evolution."
Not against evolution. What's your point as concerns rationality?
Are you a practicing catholic?
Were your parents catholic as well?
You are human? :) Just checking...lol.
doG: You have not been paying attention to his posts. Catholic, Christian. Muslim or Buddhist. "Yes" to it all and "No" to everything. In an infinite reality where God does not exist what difference do labels make? Touch an idea once and your life is forever changes for having touched it. How then can one return to the idea and claim to be that which he was before. Catholics, Christians, Muslims and Buddhists all exist in the past of the ever expanding infinite reality. They are not here and now.
I still want raisins...
Everything we ponder is a human construct. Even the concept of reality being either finite or infinite.
You ok, Ray?
"You ok, Ray?"
Absolutely just checking for validity.
Check away Ray. Good to hear you're OK, though I cant see you rating much validity with vague open ended statements and curt, terse, uninformative answers.
People are just going to think you are just dissing them.
That's when everything goes downhill and debate drops to an ad hominem free for all, that we are all tired of seeing.
Care to elaborate on the OP or is there anything else you care to discuss?
What is this adjusted version of Pascal's wager you operate with? Why is it different and how is it more valid than Blaise's version?
"Are you a practicing catholic? Were your parents catholic as well? You are human? :) Just checking...lol."
My mother used to be my father is not Christian and he raised me
I am what I am and I am not what I am not
The Hybrid Pascals Wager would not be on topic in this thread. I'll present it on another thread. The test is whether rationality is objective or not. Thus far I have not seen defense of rationality as being objective. The point being that all "judgement" concerning arguments are void due to being subjective. In order to do this you must establish that words have objective meaning rather than conceptual meaning and that words themselves are not mere human constructs.
I'm just waiting for someone to present any evidence to establish rationality as objective.
"If we exist in an infinite reality then rationality is a human construct."
You are the one making the assertion, thus it is up to you to prove it. Let us begin please by you offering your definition of "infinite reality".
In order for there to be an honest and adult conversation, we require clarification so misunderstandings do not happen.
This particular assertion does not qualify to be held accountable by established rules of debate. They are completely useless at this time. If we are questioning rationality then we are questioning the rules of debate. Your rules only apply if they are not subjective. At this time it is actually more necessary for you to offer evidence that rationality is objective. Otherwise I have no choice but to be skeptical of your established guidelines for debate. Especially considering that logic is dependent on words and sentence structure to function which are clearly human constructs.
An infinite reality is entirely hard to define if not impossible. The best description I could give for your consideration is universes causing universes infinitely. Universes beginning and ending infinitely. That would not be an objective definition however. It would merely be a description we could comprehend.
" At this time it is actually more necessary for you to offer evidence that rationality is objective."
No catholicray, it does not work that way. You were the one who made the claim, it is you who must prove it. All you are attempting to do is reverse the burden of proof, a failed tactic.
Is the earth flat? Was it made more likely to be flat when more people believed it was?
Again rationality can be demonstrated to produce consistently objective results as can science. And again, simply throwing them away lends no credence to religious superstition, so I'm not sure what you hope to achieve with this nonsense we have seen so many times before on here.
I also don't accept demonstrably objective methods that better help us understand reality because I am an atheist, rather I am an atheist because no such methods return any evidence for any deity or anything supernatural, and religious apologetics have too often outraged such objective reasoning, and denied objective scientific facts.