I am starting this topic here as it was brought up in another thread and is starting to detract from the theme of the OP.
Grizz stated:
I would like to bring up a subject that is really in need of addressing:
An argument is Rational if it is valid.
An argument is rational and deductively valid if the conclusion neccesarily follows from the premise.
All apples are green.
I have an apple in my hand.
Therefore the apple in my hand is green.
The above is a perfectly rational argument. One would show the argument to be unsound and therefore false by demonstrating the premises to be false - not by proclaiming the argument to be irrational. There is nothing irrational about the argument itself. It just happens to be unsound.
An argument is rational and inductively valid if the conclusion follows from premises that are a posterei(experience based) and cannot be deductively arrived at.
The sun rises every day.
Tomorrow is another day.
The sun will rise tomorrow.
An argument is irrational and invalid only if the conclusions do not follow from the premise.
Mcintosh apples are round and red
I am holding a round and red object in my hand.
Therefore the object in my hand is a Mcintosh apple.
One need not prove the premises to the above argument false as it is invalid and irrational.
There is nothing irrational about many of the statements present in arguments employed in the athiesm/theism debate as most are merely stated as propositionals:
- The laws of nature do not need to account for their own existence.
- God does not need to account for his/hers/its own existence.
I have seen many use the above both as premises in arguments but never as conclusions of an argument. They really are not rational or irrational as they are not arguments - they are simply propositionals and accepted as a valid premise.
I often hear someone say it is Irrational to hold The laws of Nature or God do not need an account for their own existence. Many attempt to demonstrate by appealing to causality that all things require a cause; however, they really succeed in negating both of the above statements and end up in an infinite regress of cause and effect.
As Wittgenstein pointed out - All arguments have to end somewhere.
™ Version 4.2