Go away. This is a philosophy forum and so far all you've done is express ignorant attitudes. It's pathetic.

Yeah, it is a philosophy forum. Which is why 'sorry but they do' is ought to be treated like the unphilosophical crap that it is.

Again, more attitude expression. Address the OP.

I addressed the entirety of its substance.

You addressed precisely nothing in it. Address it.

Sorry, but it's trash.

See how this argument works?

More attitude expression. Show your working. Address the OP.

It's what you wrote. If you think it's attitude then so be it.

Sorry, but they do. — Bartricks

This is the only line worth anything in the OP, and it is worth nothing.

Show your working. Address the OP.

Note, you have yet to do this. You simply told me your 'intuitions' about certain matters. I then asked you in what way that was relevant to the OP. You then asked me whether I trust your intuitions. Well, no of course I don't - why would I trust the intuitions of a person whose reason is so poor they can't understand the OP? I mean, did I at any point assert in the OP that our faculties of intuition are infallible or that yours in particular is?

Address the OP. — Bartricks

There is nothing to address in the OP because the entirity of its substance is a bald assertion which does not follow from the waffle that precedes it.

This is the only line worth anything in the OP, and it is worth nothing. — Streetlight

But you're not very good at arguing or at understanding what another person has argued. I mean, you somehow thought that I had argued that your faculty of intuition is infallible, yes? But that's not in the OP. So you just have really poor comprehension skills.

First, reasons to believe things are directives to believe things. — Bartricks

"Reasons" =/= "directives" as you point out below with "directives OF reason", so your premise is false and invalidates your "argument".

[ ... ] because all of the directives of reason are her directives.

Oops. :snicker:

Clearly you don't even understand the puzzle I was attempting to resolve.

Do you understand what a self-undermining case is?

Do you understand what a self-undermining case is? — Bartricks

It really doesn't matter because God in the OP has nothing to do with it other than a rabbit which you pull put of a hat as a literal deus ex machina. I don't need to follow your argument because there isn't one.

"Reasons" =/= "directives" as you point out below with "directives OF reason", so your premise is false and invalidates your "argument".

[ ... ] because all of the directives of reason are her directives.
Oops. :snicker: — 180 Proof

Read what I say carefully. Reasons-to-believe things are directives. Directives need a director. The director needs to be a person.

The word 'reason' is ambiguous (that means it has several distinct meanings). Sometimes we use it to denote reasons-to-believe things.

Sometimes it is used to denote the faculty of intuition that gives us some awareness of the reasons-to-believe things.

And sometimes it is used to denote the 'source' of the directives.

Reasons-to-believe things are directives.

They need a director.

The director needs to be a person.

That person will be 'Reason' because - do you remember from above? - that's one of the uses of the word 'reason'.

That person will be God.

That's called an argument.

Note too that it is not essential to my case. Everyone must admit that reasons-to-believe things exist. The job of work is to reconcile their existence with an evolutionary account of our development. That, I am arguing, cannot be done without God.

[Completely irrelevant non-sequitur]

[Bald assertion]

"Sorry but it's true"

"Take me seriously!!!"

Lol no.

It really doesn't matter because God in the OP has nothing to do with it other than a rabbit which you pull put of a hat as a literal deus ex machina. I don't need to follow your argument because there isn't one. — Streetlight

Once more, address the OP. Start by trying to understand the puzzle I was raising. Like I say, there's no doubt an SEP page on it. I know you people love fancy labels as you think it makes you sound clever, so what I am doing above is raising what's known as the 'ontological' version of the evolutionary debunking argument.

Once more, address the OP. — Bartricks

Once more, there is nothing of substance to address in the OP because it resolves into a bald assertion which deserves exactly no engagement other than to point it out and laugh.

I don't think you know what 'bald assertion' means. I did not baldly assert that purely evolutionary accounts of our development leave us having to conclude - incoherently - that there are no reasons to believe anything. I carefully explained the matter. Now, if you think my explanation was faulty - and note, I didn't mention God once during that explanation - say where and why. Don't just express your ignorant attitudes towards me and an OP that mentions God. I get that you hate religions and are all cross and stuff, but this is a philosophy forum and the OP contains a case that you need to address. If you are convinced it doesn't, that's fine - go away then.

I don't think you know what 'bald assertion' means. — Bartricks

And reasons to believe things require God. Sorry, but they do — Bartricks

The word 'reason' is ambiguous (that means it has several distinct meanings). — Bartricks

So your premise is vague. Fallacy of ambiguity. :clap:

Vague and ambiguous mean different things. And it's not a fallacy to employ an ambiguous term. Christ almighty - who the hell educated you people?

who the hell educated you people? — Bartricks

No one agrees with you.

So the case for evolution by natural selection presupposes that God exists. — Bartricks

Source: "I made it up / It came to me in a dream".

So? You think philosophy is a democracy?

Do you actually understand the OP? Do you understand how an unassisted evolutionary account of our development presents a problem?

Do you actually understand the OP? — Bartricks

It was very easy to understand.

I dun not understand OP, but I dun don't like it cos he mentioned god and I don't like god so I will say some stuff.

So you understand, then, that an exclusively evolutionary story about our development isn't correct?

Aw buddy its okay that you don't know how inferences work we're all here to help.