Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
The argument from reason is a transcendental argument against metaphysical naturalism and for the existence of God (or at least a supernatural being that is the source of human reason). The best-known defender of the argument is C. S. Lewis .
Whether an argument is valid only depends on its form. An important feature of formal logic is that for a valid argument, the truth of its premises ensures the truth of its conclusion, i.e. it is impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion to be false. [18] [17] [1] [3]
The other three classes of objects are immediate representations, while this class is always and already composed of fixed representations of representations. Therefore, the truth-value of concepts abstracted from any of the other three classes of objects is grounded in referring to something outside the concept. Concepts are abstract judgments ...
As the study of argument is of clear importance to the reasons that we hold things to be true, logic is of essential importance to rationality. Arguments may be logical if they are "conducted or assessed according to strict principles of validity", [1] while they are rational according to the broader requirement that they are based on reason and knowledge.
Convinced by the argument, Pascal gives the mugger the wallet. In one of Yudkowsky's examples, the mugger succeeds by saying "give me five dollars, or I'll use my magic powers from outside the Matrix to run a Turing machine that simulates and kills 3 ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ 3 {\displaystyle 3\uparrow \uparrow \uparrow \uparrow 3} people".
The Stoics believed that the universe operated according to reason, i.e. by a God which is immersed in nature itself. [4] Logic (logike) was the part of philosophy which examined reason (logos). [5] To achieve a happy life—a life worth living—requires logical thought. [4] The Stoics held that an understanding of ethics was impossible ...
C. S. Lewis's argument from reason is also a kind of transcendental argument. Most contemporary formulations of a transcendental argument for God have been developed within the framework of Christian presuppositional apologetics and the likes of Cornelius Van Til and Greg Bahnsen. [2]
Van Til likewise claimed that there are valid arguments to prove that the God of the Bible exists but that the unbeliever would not necessarily be persuaded by them because of his suppression of the truth, and therefore the apologist, he said, must present the truth regardless of whether anyone is actually persuaded by it (Frame notes that the ...