Richard S. Crawford wrote:

TehGhodTrole wrote:

Irrational \Ir*ra"tion*al\, a. [L. irrationalis: cf. F.
irrationnel. See In- not, and Rational.]
1. Not rational; void of reason or understanding; as, brutes
are irrational animals.

2. Not according to reason; absurd; foolish.

Not just impossible, but irrational.

I actually know the technical definition of irrational. I still don't
believe it is the most appropriate term here.

<shrug>

It's really not my issue of people read things into it that aren't
there. So I'll not bother with it and move on to exposing the
the nut of the problem for you, and hopefully bring up some very
interesting topics for discussion...

However, you can also infer from A,

B1) If A) is correct, then it is impossible to present evidence
for a metaphysical X, regardless of whether X exists or not.

That should have gone without needing to be said on the grounds that
it is the atheist position being pointed to as being irrational
when evidence of the unprovable is requested.

And since A is true, then isn't the theist position equally
irrational?

How can you reasonably argue that at all when you don't yet
have a clear understanding of the principles that are driving
my argument?

If you really want to get to the bottom of this, I'm more than
happy to show it to you but you need to stay focused. Don't
forget that I've levelled accusations that atheism is devoid of
reason or understanding, so it's a mere diversion at this stage
to turn anything onto theism, even if the answer does seem
obvious, which it actually isn't. And I'll point to that right
now...

However, and this is quite important here, should we get as
far as you agreeing that what I am saying is at least reasonable
then my intent is to further show that you cannot apply the same
principle to the Christian God and remain rational. Big claim,
that one. But wait, there's more to come.

Seriously, I am not joking there. I don't call this atheist
checkmate for nothing. The answers follow below...

Of course, this only means that it's equally true for the theist.

See above. That's only what you assume. I am quite certain that
I can show the inherent unreasonablness in your statement even if
it isn't yet obvious to you. But that challenge awaits you.

Unless you are admitting the rationality of those points of view,
kindly be quiet.

D) It is not logically possible for anyone to assert their own
rationality and remain consistent.

What does this mean?

It means you don't know about Godelian mathematics or understand
basic philosophy.

Please refrain from the insults, and answer the question.

Why is stating an observation an insult? If you understood
what you need to understand, my observations tell me that
you would not have said what you did. Where's the insult?

And what makes my statement any different from the one
above it... "Unless you are admitting the rationality of
those points of view, kindly be quiet"?

What does D mean, though? I assume you're referring the Godel's
Incompleteness Theorem, which states, essentially, that within every
system of symbolized logic there are true axioms the truth of which
cannot actually be demonstrated within that system of symbolized
logic. In other words, some axioms and theorems of symbolic logic
cannot be demonstrated within symbolic logic, so one must reference
meta-logic in order to demonstrate its truth. And yet, within a
formalized system of meta-logic, there are other statements still
which are true but cannot be demonstrated within that formulation.

What I fail to understand is how that applies here?

Yeah, most don't see it at all. They get stuck on a crazy and illogical
roundabout of formal mathematical systems and forget that they can ask
"one plus one equals what?" of someone else and the other person should
come with a consistent answer. It seems to escape so many people that
their heads actually encode sequences of numbers, along with the
syntactic notions of "formula", "sentence" and "proof". They also don't
seem to realise that the answer is arrived at by the application of
axioms stored in the head that used to apply rules to the syntactically
encoded notions of formula, sentence and proof.

There's a huge clue there for you. This is where I assume you need to
focus your attention. The fundamental argument is this:

If it is true that the mind can encode sequences of numbers, along with
the syntactic notions of "formula", "sentence" and "proof", and get a
consistent answer, then it must necessarily be true that the mind is,
in fact, one way or the other and at one level or another, behaving
exactly as a formal system behaves. In other words, the notions
expressed by the incompleteness theorem apply to the human mind.

One trap to avoid in assessing that matter is the dual bottomless pits
of emotion and perception that impact various aspects of decisions we
might make. To go down that road is to imply that perception and
emotion impact on the outcome of decoding the notion of "one plus one
equals two". Plainly, it is not rational to ascribe emotion or
perception to that process. In essence, I am implying that the mind
operates as a formal system at one level and as an inconsistent system
at another.

That means I am not implying that the entire human mind is in itself
one complete formal system, only those parts that deal with encoding
and decoding syntactic notions of things like "formula", "sentence"
and "proof".

The point is, on its own, Godel either applies to those basic thought
processes or it doesn't. Since I have just argued and shown that it
does apply, your job is to either accept it after analysing it, or
knock it down with a counter argument that stands the test of logic
and reasonableness.

If I assert my
own rationality, and I, by definition, irrational? Does that apply
to you as well?

Isn't the answer obvious? Please try not to discuss the extrapolated
consequences out until you have an understanding of what all this
really means. It's only diversion and I don't want to get bogged
down in tit-for-tat assertions. If you follow along and ask
reasonable questions, everything should fall into place. All that
I ask of you is that you think. If you can't knock it down what
I'm saying, don't try diversions to get past it because I simply
won't allow it.

Or are you implying that the logical impossibility of demonstrating
the existence of God necessarily implies that God exists? Isn't that
sort of like Anselm's argument?

No, I am not implying that at all. However there is something to be
said for creating a metaphysical X in your head and applying necessary
existence to it because it was created, even as an idea or notion. But
that's a different matter and delves into things we don't need to look
at right now.

If this is true, then shouldn't we reject your
own set of syllogisms out of hand because they are "rational" and,
therefore, inconsistent?

No. You should analyse them and come to the correct logical
conclusion. Even though I state it is correct, I can't force you
to think, so you have the right of disagreeing with it even
if you don't understand it, but that does not imply I will
listen to an irrational argument, which most of your inferences
below are... impossible <> irrational.

I'm withholding from the obvious knee-jerk response to this statement,

If our roles were to be reversed, and assuming I was serious about
understanding what was being alluded to, my obvious knee-jerk reaction
would be to give myself a very good shake and ask myself, "what the heck
am I missing here?"

and simply saying that I am not convinced of the validity of your
argument, or its soundness. Merely asserting that it is correct does
not make it so.

That's why you need to analyse it for yourself. It would be irrational
for me to expect you to just believe what I'm getting at here, wouldn't
it? The principles underlying what I've said actually speak for
themselves but the problem is, either I am completely wrong, or you
don't actually understand or fully understand the concepts and need me
to point to each one and explain them.

There are other options, but those are the most likely that I choose
to point to.

I'm not certain I understand what D means,
or how it follows from A (even through B and C, which I'm not
convinced are valid inferences).

It's related to Godel's Incompletness theorem. Look it up. this
isn't dayschool for twits.

Ahem.

:)

If A) is correct, B) naturally follows
If B) naturally follows then C) is valid
D) is a corollary of A)

For all A), B), C) and D): Reference the Epimenides Paradox
and Incompleteness Theorems

http://www.evanwiggs.com/articles/GODEL.html
www.miskatonic.org/godel.html
www.ccir.ed.ac.uk/~jad/vantil-list/archive-May-1998/msg00073.html
hatteraslight.com/navy/Objectivismhall/read.php?f=25&i=28&t=28
www.physicsforums.com/archive/topic/5999-1.html

It's now your job to show that argument, and the supporting
references as being invalid and inapplicable. Either that or
you can shut the ***** up yourself.

By your own arguments, you admit that it is impossible
("irrational") to demand such evidence.

I did not say impossible since atheists do it, therefore it is
possible. Ratioanlity is a different thing. Not only do you not
understand the basic logic behind the argument, you cannot
distinguish between absurdity/foolishness and possibility.

No, I cannot make sense of the argument. It is irrational to demand
evidence, and it is equally irrational to present evidence. And this
goes for either side. Is it not irrational to demand evidence for the
non-existence of God?

In this case, "it" is the demand for evidence, and what I said applies
even if the word impossible is enclosed in quotes.

Your statement ascribes the property of impossibility and that's not
correct on the grounds that it can't be impossible because we observe
it happening, so it must be possible. What it is is irrational, that is,
it is devoid of reason or understanding, which is the very essence of
the charge I lay against atheism in all its forms.

Likewise, you admit

.... nothing at all, since you clearly cannot make
more than one or two valid inferences in a row without
falling flat on your face.

Indeed.

:) I'm happy to persist if you follow the basic rule of trying
not to bog this down or trying to divert attention from what you
don't seem to understand yet, even if you are doing it wholly
unintentionally. That is what I actually assume is happening. By
that I mean that I ascribe no malice in what I see.

Go and learn a few things before you decide remove any doubt
about your ability to sinply think. Start with the Godel
Incompleteness theorem. Of course, you'll probably come
back with deep misconceptions and then accuse it of not
being applicable. You won't be the first.

Thank you. I will happily trade in my degree in philosophy for a
refund.

To be honest, if what I am saying stands up to scrutiny, then I
would recommend such an action as being highly appropriate. Here
is why:

A) If what I say about incompleteness theorem being applicable
to basic mind processes and human notions is correct, then
it necessarily follows that those same processes are also
subject to the notion of unprovable truth, which is a
corollary of incompleteness theorem.

B) If A) is correct, then you cannot logically apply what I
am saying to theism on the grounds that you must first prove
that my asserted knowledge of God as an indisputably
established fact is NOT subject to unprovable truth.

There it is. Atheist checkmate. You should put in for that refund
on your philosphy degree now.