The Flaws In Rationalism And Religious Presuppositionalism

[Heart of Space]

Leo's video on rationalism and it's flaws really heavily reminded me of a certain sect of Christian apologetics that is Presuppositionalism.   I always thought it was the most interesting and best argument that that religious philosophers ever had to offer.  People usually get confused with this argument and it tends to get bogged down in philosophical jargon.  Let me try to explain the basis of the argument in an easy way to understand. 

When debating and making statements about the world you use the tool of logic and rationality.  In using logic you attempt to come to conclusions that are independent of your mind, which means that these conclusions are true for all people, even true universally. 

EXAMPLE:  Let's say we have a disagreement because I come to conclusion X and I say you are wrong for having conclusion Y .  In saying you're wrong for having conclusion Y there is an assumption that the tool I used to get to conclusion X (logic and rationality) is also a valid tool for arriving to conclusions in your mind.  In other words, conclusion X is beyond just being subjective truth (true to me). Conclusion X is true to you as well and even true universally (true everywhere to everyone). 

So, here is the problem with this.  To come to a conclusion that is true for all in the universe (universal), the tools of logic and rationality also have to be universal.  They have to exist independent of the subjective mind.  In addition to this, to prove that your conclusions are valid, your tool of logic and rationality have to be valid.  To build a good house you need good tools, no?  But how do you prove logic and rationality are independent of the human mind and not only that, but valid way of arriving at conclusions too?  The short answer is that you can't and that you have to presuppose (make assumptions with no basis) the validity and universal nature of logic and rationality before you even open your mouth to make the argument. 

Christians will say that because of this inconsistency of having to presuppose logic to prove a logical conclusion is equally as rational as presupposing God.  They will go even further to say that since logic and rationality are presupposed universal mental frameworks and concepts they are contingent (rely on) upon a universal mind.  A god mind.  They admit that this does not prove a certain religion as true, but it at least gives a basis for presupposing the existence of God being the most rational position. 

I found Leo's position on this idea that rationality and logic are subjective human features to be very interesting.  And I agree with him.  The only problem is that the large basis of his premise that rationality is subjective is based on experiential evidence from meditation.  Not everyone is will to do the massive amount of work it requires to experientially see this in their mind.

Any thoughts fellow thinkers and beings? 

Edit:  Banned from posting content till June 20, 2016 for posting something that wasn't geared to self-actualization.  The over-modding here is going to kill this forum lol.  Anyways, I can't respond till then. 

Edited June 18, 2016 by Heart of Space

[Heart of Space]

Do none of you care about this?  This is such an interesting topic.  Lmao.  Someone talk to me about this waaaah waaaaaaah

[Mal]

@Heart of Space

What possible use do you think anybody would get from discussing this?  It's just baloney

[Heart of Space]

26 minutes ago, Mal said:

@Heart of Space

What possible use do you think anybody would get from discussing this?  It's just baloney

Oh, thanks man.  I knew I could count on your intellectual vigor.  I actually was thinking of you when I made this thread and now that you've responded the thread has served its purpose. 

[Mal]

@Heart of Space What happened to the objective non-emotional reaction thingy?  You're not "testing" me again are you?

[Heart of Space]

1 hour ago, Mal said:

@Heart of Space What happened to the objective non-emotional reaction thingy?  You're not "testing" me again are you?

No, that was a genuinely sarcastic response.  Am I allowed to have emotions, Mal?

Mal:  "Why of course Heart of Space, you can have as many emotions as your little heart desires." 

Wow thanks, Mal, you really are my favorite enlightened being.  Wanna do anal?

Mal:  "Sorry, Heart of Space, you have kind of a small penis and I prefer 6 inches and above."

Oh ok, well at least give me a hug.

Mal:  "Sure, mate." 

*hugs*

Edited June 25, 2016 by Heart of Space

[Mal]

@Heart of Space Pardon?

[Leo Gura]

@Heart of Space There is a much deeper problem with the endeavor of logical reasoning and proof.

The notion of "validity" is a construct of the mind. It has no absolute nature. It's relative to an ego. Moreover, it can ONLY occur within the context of language, which is all relative and arbitrary. The mind had to construct the possibility of language before there could be the concept of "validity" or "reason".

There is no such thing as validity, reason, proof, or justification. All of that is taken-for-granted arbitrary assumptions.

Try to eliminate the notion of language whilst at the same time holding something as valid or invalid. It won't be possible. Those are all projections of mind.