Is the Argument from Reason is Too Successful For its Own Good?

 this Reddit post will be posted here in black. My replies will be in red

Thesis: the argument from reason mistakenly applies a general doubt about the validity of reason to the specific case of naturalism, but in reality applies equally to supernaturalism, as well as any other account of the universe, theistic or not. Therefore, it is not a relevant argument in discussions of theism.

TL;DR

The argument from reason states that naturalism (the view that only the natural exists and the supernatural does not) depends on reason, but makes it impossible to trust that same reason. On this grounds, it rejects naturalism. However, it is impossible to trust reason under any worldview, including theism. This has nothing to do with naturalism - it's just a feature of reason. Therefore, the argument from reason, if successful, succeeds at rejecting all worldviews (including the claim that the argument from reason itself is valid). So the argument from reason contradicts itself and must fail.

The Argument from Reason

The argument from reason is an argument associated with Christian apologist C. S. Lewis and popular with online Christian apologists in general (though it does not relate to Christianity specifically). The argument seeks to disprove a view of the universe called "naturalism", which basically holds that only natural things and the relationships between them exist, and that the supernatural doesn't. Some versions of the argument also further try to prove supernaturalism or theism.

Here is C. S. Lewis's description of the argument from reason:

One absolutely central inconsistency ruins [the naturalistic worldview].... The whole picture professes to depend on inferences from observed facts. Unless inference is valid, the whole picture disappears.... [U]nless Reason is an absolute--all is in ruins. Yet those who ask me to believe this world picture also ask me to believe that Reason is simply the unforeseen and unintended by-product of mindless matter at one stage of its endless and aimless becoming. Here is flat contradiction. They ask me at the same moment to accept a conclusion and to discredit the only testimony on which that conclusion can be based.— C. S. Lewis, "Is Theology Poetry?", The Weight of Glory and Other Addresses

In simpler terms, the argument basically goes like this:

If we claim naturalism is true, then we and everything we are is the result of natural, mindless, non-rational forces acting without any purpose.

If we are the result of nonrational forces, there is no reason to think that they would produce humans with an ability to use reliable reason.

Therefore, we have no reason to trust our own reasoning, and so we can't trust the reasoning that led us to naturalism.

A common counterargument to this is to point to evolution. 

Evolution, the defender of natural logic will say, favors humans who can correctly reason over those they cannot! Therefore there is a reason to think mindless forces produced reliable reason in us! It is at this point the proponent of the argument from reason will usually smirk, and say, "Oh? And how exactly do you know evolution is true? Did you use reason to conclude that? Hohohoho!", pushing up their glasses as they gently stroke their signed copy of Mere Christianity.

The apologist's defense here is simple but quite impenetrable. Any counterargument you present to defend your naturally-created reason will be based on, you guessed it, reason. So any counterargument you make will be circular! You cannot use unreliable reason to show that same reason to be reliable!

But they forget that in a naturalistic worldview, everything is the result of matter acting in accordance with the physical laws. Not the laws of logic. So, when the atheist cites "reason" or a "reasonable conclusion", it really just the result of an unintelligent, mindless, material process that follows the physical laws, not logic/reason. 

But what of the Theist? She is not bound by the natural or by the physical laws. Thus, that which constrains the atheist/naturalist brain does not do so to the Theist. The Theist is free from the bounds of the physical and can engage in critical thinking as governed by the laws of logic. - From my post on the Argument From Reason

So, what are we to do? Do we give up and convert to theism post-haste? Instead, let's take a trip - in our favorite rocket ship - to visit Planet Populon.

Planet Populon

Planet Populon is a distant planet not so different from Earth. On it live a race on beings called the Popularians, who are little purple creatures with four arms and six toes on each foot. They are very similar to humans, save for one important difference: they are incapable of understanding the logical fallacy of appeal to popularity.

The appeal to popularity is a simple logical fallacy that says "because an idea is popular, it must be true." To us humans, it's easy to see why this is false. For example, it was once popular to think the earth was flat! In some places, it's popular to think that pineapple tastes good on pizza! And yet those things are obviously false.

But the Popularians are different from us. They are incapable of recognizing this as a fallacy. Whenever one of them begins to think about the problems or contradictions that arise from an appeal to popularity, a special gland in their brains immediately floods their minds with thoughts of the last sports-ball match they watched, and they stop thinking about logical fallacies. Thus, the Popularians never realize that an appeal to popularity is fallacious - they are convinced that it's a valid form of reasoning.

The Popularians, too, believe in God. In fact, they have a logical proof of God's existence, known as the populogical argument. It goes a little something like this: most Popularians believe God exists – therefore, God exists. It's a flawless argument, beautiful in its simplicity, so elegant and minimal that there's no room for logical errors to possibly slip in. Furthermore, for those crazies that question whether reason itself is valid, the Popularians have an answer! It's popular to think that if God exists, he would create the Popularians with reliable reason. And since it's popular, it must be true! So the Popularians' reason must be reliable.

But we, from the side, know there is an error in the populogical argument. The argument commits a logical fallacy - an appeal to popularity. This means the Popularians' reason is not reliable, God or no. But the very fact that their reasoning is unreliable makes them unable to find the flaws in their proofs of their reasoning being reliable!

The Point

So what's the point of our visit to Planet Populon? It's simple. How do we know we are not like the Popularians?

If our reason was unreliable, and there was some fallacy we were incapable of noticing or some rule of logic we were missing, then all of our arguments would be moot. No matter how hard we worked to prove that the sky is blue, or that God exists, or that our reasoning was reliable, it would be pointless, because the very reason we used to tell the good arguments from the bad would be misfiring. And there's no way to prove we'd know if this was the case - after all, to prove that, we need to assume reason is reliable in our proof! It is impossible to prove that reason is reliable, because you need to use reason to do so.

So what does this have to do with the argument from reason? Well remember, the argument from reason was an argument targeted at naturalism. It said that naturalism must be false, because it implies our reason can't be trusted. But the Popularians don't believe in naturalism, and their reasoning still can't be trusted! It turns out, you can never prove your reason is trustworthy. No matter your worldview, you must assume your reason is reliable in order to make any argument at all.

This is the flaw! The argument from reason doesn't say that "reason is unreliable", it states that "reason is unreliable under a naturalistic worldview".  And that's because a naturalistic brain is constrained by the physical laws. Every human action, including thoughts, is the result of the physical laws. The laws of logic play zero part in the thinking process.  

This means that the argument from reason succeeds not just against naturalism, but against any worldview! For example, here's the argument again, but directed at theism this time.

If we claim theism is true, then we and everything we are is the result of supernatural, mindful, rational forces acting without any purpose.

Strawman argument - a logical fallacy where someone misrepresents, exaggerates, or distorts an opponent's actual argument to make it easier to attack, creating a weak "straw man" version to knock down instead of the real, stronger position, thereby appearing to win the debate without addressing the core issue. It's a deceptive tactic in debates, often involving oversimplification or taking words out of context, to make one's own stance seem superior.

I do not argue, nor do I know of any Christian who argues for a "supernatural, mindful, rational forces acting without any purpose"

If we are the result of rational forces, there is no reason to think that they would produce humans with an ability to use reliable reason.

Therefore, we have no reason to trust our own reasoning, and so we can't trust the reasoning that led us to theism.

A theist might object and say, "of course we have reason to think rational forces would produce rational minds!" But this time we can smirk, push up our glasses, and say, "Oh? And how exactly do you know rational forces would produce rational minds? Did you use reason to conclude that?" Once again, any argument you use to show that human reason is reliable under theism is itself based on that same reason 

A theist might object and say, "of course we have reason to think rational forces would produce rational minds!" But this time we can smirk, push up our glasses, and say, "Oh? And how exactly do you know rational forces would produce rational minds? Did you use reason to conclude that?" Once again, any argument you use to show that human reason is reliable under theism is itself based on that same reason.

Notice a parallel here. It's quite reasonable to think that we can trust our reason under theism - after all, we can propose a simple mechanism for it (God made it that way). Just as before, it was quite reasonable to think that we can trust our reason under naturalism - after all, we can propose a simple mechanism for it (evolution made it that way). But in both cases, establishing these mechanisms relies on our reason, so ends up being circular. 

Under a theistic worldview, human reasoning is not viewed as a mere evolutionary byproduct for survival but as a reflection of a divine mind.

In this framework, the ability to think logically is often treated as a "gift" or an "imprint" of the Creator, ensuring that the human mind is attuned to the structure of the universe. This perspective changes why we trust our thoughts and how we use them.

The central premise of theistic reasoning (particularly in the Abrahamic traditions) is the concept of Imago Dei—that humans are created in the "image of God."

Since God is viewed as the ultimate rational being (the Logos), creating humans in His image implies endowing them with a "spark" of that rationality. This gives humans the unique ability to step beyond instinct (like animals) and engage in abstract thought, mathematics, and moral judgment. We reason because we are "mini-reasoners" modeled after the "Great Reasoner."

In a theistic worldview, the laws of logic (like A cannot be non-A) are not arbitrary rules invented by humans, nor are they rules that God simply "decided" to create. Instead, they are believed to be reflections of God's own nature.

Because God is consistent and cannot lie or contradict Himself, the universe He created operates on consistent, non-contradictory laws. When humans use logic, they are not inventing a tool; they are discovering the fabric of reality. To reason correctly is to think God's thoughts after Him.

Since a rational God designed the human mind specifically to know and understand the world, then we have a valid reason to trust our cognitive faculties. We can assume that our logic maps onto reality because both were made by the same Author.

Contrary to the popular cultural idea that faith and reason are opposites, the classical theistic view (championed by figures like Thomas Aquinas and Augustine) sees them as partners. It's actually atheism/naturalism v reason that are opposites, or incompatible. 

"Faith Seeking Understanding": This famous Latin phrase (fides quaerens intellectum) suggests that faith is the starting point that orients the mind, while reason is the tool used to explore and understand that faith.

 Theists often describe two sources of knowledge:

1. The Book of Scripture: Specific revelation (moral laws, nature of God).

2. The Book of Nature: General revelation (science, physics, logic). Since both books have the same Author, theists believe they cannot ultimately contradict each other. If they seem to, it is presumed that our human interpretation of one (or both) is wrong.

Theistic worldviews also offer an explanation for why human reasoning fails (bias, error, delusion). This is often called the "noetic effect of sin" or human finitude.

While the capacity for reason is divine, the execution is flawed because humans are imperfect/fallen.

Summary: The Difference

Feature	Naturalistic View	Theistic View
Origin of Reason	Evolutionary adaptation for survival.	Imprint of the Divine Mind (Imago Dei).
Basis of Logic	None.Thoughts are the result of physical laws not  logical laws..	Reflection of God's internal consistency.
Why Trust It?	Can't as it works for survival, not truth seeking	It was designed to find Truth.
Goal	To adapt and survive. Logic/truth not relevant	To know God and understand His creation/reality.

This is just how reasoning works. You can't use reason to prove itself, because reason itself precludes it. Reason an axiom - you must assume it to use it. But I'd say it's a pretty reasonable assumption to make.

Only axiom is Reason is the basis for knowledge

Conclusion

The argument from reason is too successful. It's an example of a class of arguments I've witnessed more and more in recent years, that I call "sinking canoe" arguments. The name comes from the following story:

The argument from reason is too successful vs atheism/natursalism, not Christain theism. 

Two men are sitting in a canoe. Suddenly, a leak springs in the bottom of the canoe, and it begins to fill with water. The man in the back stands up, walks to the front, carefully examines the other man's seat, and declares: "Yep! Your half is sinking!"

The format of the fallacy is much like the argument from reason. Let's say you believe in idea A, and want to refute some competing idea B. Take a general issue that plagues both A and B, change up some wording and introduce some terminology to make it seem specific to B, and then present it as a refutation of B. These arguments are so very effective because to refute the specific argument against B usually seems impossible, because it's not an argument against B at all. What really must be done is to see the argument for what it is: a general issue that rests on a deeper level than the contest between A and B, and that supports them both – an issue that must be resolved before either A or B can succeed, or must refute them both, but that offers no insight into which of A or B is the better idea. The canoe sinks for us both, and we must either patch it together, or both go down with the ship.

Sorry to tell you, but we are not sitting in the same boat. Since your naturalism cannot account for or give grounding to reason, critical thinking, or logic. However God can. 

So yes, your boat is sunk, not the Christian's!

The Argument from Reason

The Argument from Reason

Why the atheist/naturalist can't trust his brain

If naturalism (materialism) is true, then your thoughts are just chemical reactions in your brain, determined by the laws of physics. But if your thoughts are just fizzing chemicals, why should you trust them to tell you the truth?

If there is no God and everything is material, then the human brain is essentially a biological machine, Your thoughts are not produced by "reason" or "logic"; they are produced by neurons firing

The only thing driving the development of the brain was Evolution. But that is where the problem starts. Evolution does not care about what is true; it only cares about what helps you survive.

If a caveman hears a rustle in the grass, it helps him survive to believe "It's a tiger!" and run away. It doesn't matter if it was actually just the wind. [Plantinga's example]

Thus, If our brains were built strictly for survival (per evolution) then we have no reason to trust them when they try to do complex things that don't help us survive, like quantum physics, philosophy, or arguing about the existence of God.

This is the fatal flaw in the atheist worldview. An atheist uses their brain to reason, "There is no God; everything is just random atoms."

But if that statement is true, then the brain they used to come to that conclusion is also just random atoms. It wasn't built for truth; it was built to hunt, reproduce, survive.

It’s like shaking a box of Scrabble letters and having them accidentally spell out a sentence. The sentence might exist, but you wouldn't trust it to contain deep meaning because it was created by random shaking, not an intelligent mind.

To trust our own brain, our own logic, we have to believe that our reasoning power comes from a rational source.

If God exists (a Rational Mind), then He created our minds in His image, specifically so we could understand the universe.

The atheist, naturalist, critic cannot use reason to disprove God, because the validity of reason depends on God. As C.S. Lewis famously put it: "Unless I believe in God, I cannot believe in thought: so I can never use thought to disbelieve in God."

*****

A common counterargument to this is to point to evolution. Evolution, the defender of "natural logic" will say, favors humans who can correctly reason over those they cannot. 

Therefore, there is a reason to think mindless forces produced reliable reason in us!

But they forget that in a naturalistic worldview, everything is the result of matter acting in accordance with the physical laws. Not the laws of logic. So, when the atheist cites "reason" or a "reasonable conclusion", it really just the result of an unintelligent, mindless, material process that follows the physical laws, not logic/reason. 

But what of the Theist? She is not bound by the natural or by the physical laws. Thus, that which constrains the atheist/naturalist brain does not do so to the Theist. The Theist is free from the bounds of the physical and can engage in critical thinking as governed by the laws of logic. 

Is the Argument from Reason is Too Successful For its Own Good?

How to Answer Loaded Questions

A loaded question, also known as a complex question, is a question that contains a controversial or unwarranted assumption that is not explicitly stated, and often implies guilt or wrongdoing. Answering it directly, regardless of the response, can trap the respondent into admitting something they may not agree with or that is not true. This is especially true if the question is framed as needing a yes or no response.

For example, the question “have you stopped mistreating your pet?” is a loaded question, because it presupposes that you have been mistreating your pet. 

• If the respondent says “yes”, then they appear to confirm that they have mistreated their pet in the past, but have since stopped.

• If the respondent says “no”, then they appear to confirm that they have mistreated their pet in the past, and are still doing so in the present.

Essentially, even if the respondent has never engaged in such behavior, and are asked to reply with either “yes” or “no”, which would seemingly confirm the accusation against them (that they have been mistreating their pet).

This type of fallacious question puts the person who is being questioned in a disadvantageous and defensive position, since the assumption in the question could reflect badly on them or pressure them to answer in a way that they wouldn’t otherwise.

Loaded questions are frequently used in various situations for rhetorical purposes, so it’s important to understand them. As such, in the following article you will learn more about loaded questions, understand why they are problematic, and see how you can properly respond to them, as well as how you can avoid using them yourself.

Note: Simply asking a yes or no question doesn't necessarily mean that it's a loaded question. 

Loaded Question Breakdown

• Unstated assumption: The question includes a hidden assumption that is not necessarily true or agreed upon by the person being asked.

• Manipulative intent: Loaded questions are often used to manipulate or trap the respondent into a certain position.

• Lack of neutrality: They are not neutral or objective questions and are designed to lead the respondent toward a particular answer.

How to respond to a loaded question:

1. Identify the assumption: The first step is to recognize the hidden assumption within the question.

2. Challenge the assumption: You can challenge the assumption directly, either by stating that you disagree with it or by pointing out that it is not true.

3. Reframe the question: You can rephrase the question to remove the assumption and make it a fair and neutral question.

4. Answer the core question: If you can, answer the core question without getting trapped by the assumption.

You can't DECIDE to believe in something.

Critics say:

You can't DECIDE to believe in something.

You can't decide to believe that invisible pink elephants exist.

You can't decide to believe that invisible pink elephants exist.

You can't decide to believe that God exist.

You can delude yourself, but deep down you know it's not real.

That is all true, but you can decide to fairly evaluate the facts, evidence, and arguments to evaluate questions like:

1) Is reason the basis for all knowledge? If not reason, then what is it? Can you defend this sans reason?

2) Do you acknowledge that the inference to the best explanation is how most if not all field of inquiry gain knowledge? Meaning, the hypothesis or theory that best explains all [or most] of the data is held to be true.

 
3) What is reality, and how do you know?

4) What best explains the origin of physical reality?

5) What best explains the origin of information in DNA?

6) What best explains human reasoning?

7) What best explains morality?

8) Is there one hypothesis that best explains all of those questions?

One explanation would be a rational, extremely powerful, intelligent designer, moral person, existing outside the physical part of reality. What most would call God. 

What is the naturalistic explanation for all of those things above? 

Are Christians dishonest and obtuse in defining and defending the Old Testament slavery as more akin to voluntary servitude than involuntary chattel slavery?

This post was inspired by this Reddit post which was inspired in part by my Leviticus 25:44-46 Does Not Support Chattel Slavery post

Okay, let's critically evaluate Prudent-Town-6724's argument. [I'll occasionally refer to Prudent-Town-6724 as OP - original post or post]

Prudent-Town-6724 stated purpose is "not seeking to prove that the Bible condones (i.e. allows for and does not prohibit) chattel slavery of the form that existed in the old Confederacy". OP's argument is that the blatant dishonesty, special pleading and wilful obtuseness that apologists and deniers wilfully engage in to deny the claim is itself a very strong argument against Christianity. [sic]

So OP intends to prove those who defend OT slavery as voluntary indentured servitude are:

1) blatantly dishonest,
2) special pleading and
3) are willfully obtuseness

Definitions:

Special pleading is applying standards, principles, and/or rules to other people or circumstances, while making oneself or certain circumstances exempt from the same critical criteria, without providing adequate justification. [source]

Obtuseness is : 1) lacking sharpness or quickness of sensibility or intellect : insensitive, stupid 2) difficult to comprehend : not clear or precise in thought or expression [source]

First, OP literally says that the argument being presented assumes that the Old Testament condones chattel slavery. The first premise is a blatant presumption. 

And we all know what Christopher Hitchens said about unsupported assertions: "what can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence" or wiki puts it: the burden of proof regarding the truthfulness of a claim lies with the one who makes the claim; if this burden is not met, then the claim is unfounded, and its opponents need not argue further in order to dismiss it

Second, The OP says that slavery in the Old Testament is chattel slavery because it's self-evident, meaning not needing to be demonstrated or explained or obvious. [source] Thus, Prudent-Town-6724's argument is claiming that:

1. Reason is not needed.
2. A sound argument is not needed.
3. Facts are not needed
4. Critical evaluation of the data is not needed.

Question 1: What can be "proven" given those criteria? 

Answer: anything and everything. Even self-contradictory ideas and diametrically opposed ideas.

Sorry, Prudent-Town-6724, but reason is the basis of all knowledge via the inference to the best explanation 

The only thing that the OP puts forward as support is some sort of "consensus of experts" - i.e Importantly, there is not a single secular academic who would deny that the Bible does condone it. But we know how faulty that can be,  And when I say consensus of experts I do not mean their opinion, I mean their careful consideration of the relevant data. However, an uncomfortable fact it is to acknowledge even an expert [or most or all experts] in careful consideration of the relevant data can be wrong. If all you care about is the consensus of experts, then you have abandoned reason and critical thinking. Sorry, but that is intellectually dangerous.

I absolutely reject the "consensus of experts" as a substitute for one's own critical thinking. I'm not discounting experts, I am saying that one should critically evaluate their arguments. No one is above that kind of criticism for evaluation.

Question 2: How valid would the OP, as well as atheists and other critics of Christianity, consider this statement: The Christian God's existence is self-evident and obvious, as well is Jesus Christ's sacrifice on the cross?

If the OP does not accept this, then the OP is committing a Special pleading fallacy, the same thing that OP accused Christians of.

Question 3: Where does OP show that Christians are blatantly dishonest or willfully obtuse? Or even engage in Special pleading?

Answer: Prudent-Town-6724 doesn't. The argument is "I assume X therefore anyone who disagrees with me is blatantly dishonest or willfully obtuse" That's it, the entire argument.

Unfortunately, Prudent-Town-6724's attempt to show how shallow and weak the Christian view is it backfired. If this is the best critics can do, then they are in a very deep intellectual vacuum. 

FYI - A mod deleted this from Reddit because it contained a "personal attack"

Prudent-Town-6724 responds  It is entirely reasonable to rely upon an academic consensus that has existed for centuries. I assume you don't personally investigate dating for every event in ancient history or commonly repeated claims about astronomy, which for example depend upon academic views that are only looked at by a tiny handful of people.

Reply: I don't know why "the scholarly consensus has been proven wrong again and again" it's such a difficult concept to understand.  One can read the arguments made by scholars and glean data from it; but to think that it's an aspect of critical thinking to just accept who somebody says without a detailed inspection or investigation is foolish and unreasonable

 
Prudent-Town-6724: Thinking that oneself, while lacking specialist knowledge or qualifications, can overturn the academic consensus requires a lack of critical thinking, not the opposite. As it depends upon an inflated sense of one's own capacities and unduly deprecatory view of specialists. Moreover, in your previous post arguing the Bible does not support slavery I posted several points of rebuttal to which you never responded.In particular, the centrepiece of your claim is claiming the anti-kidnap proves no chattel slavery. This IS obtuse because as I indicated earlier, Roman law prohibited kidnapping but was also a slave society. It also ignores Deuteronomy 20:10-14 which clearly provides one means by which people can be seized as " plunder" (ie slaves).

Reply: This is a bit of Whataboutery - a rhetorical trick of responding to criticism with a counter criticism instead of a defense against the original comment.

Prudent-Town-6724: I feel people like you do not engage in these arguments in good faith, but simply try to turn it into a contest of endurance in which by repeating the same nonsense ad infinitum you can drown out the truth

Reply: If you are not going to address the point I'm making, why would I go off on a tangent of your making? 

cod3man responds 

The Three Laws of Logic

As good critical thinker should be well acquainted with the three founding principles of informal logic, the form of logic generally used in debates and arguments.

Understanding of basic logic is important to effectively be able to get across your reasons for being holding the views you have, as well as being able to identify flaws and fallacies in your interlocutor's arguments. So, a good idea to quickly go over the three “laws” of informal logic, how they work and why they are important.

It is one of the pivotal assumptions of western civilization is that there are certain fundamental principles which govern human thinking. They are considered as fundamental in the sense that without these laws, reasoning cannot take place. 

In western tradition, the concept of laws of thought can be traced back to Aristotle (384-322 BCE), the eminent Greek thinker, who is considered to be the pioneer of western logic. Before him, the geometricians and the arithmeticians used proofs in their respective domains. Aristotle was the first to extend the study of formal proof in the domains beyond the realms of geometrical and mathematical thinking. He was also the first to investigate the patterns embedded in human reasoning and the way in which reasoning is processed. 

As part of his project, Aristotle was trying to describe the basic laws by which human thought (and reasoning) can occur.  laws so fundamental that obedience to them is both necessary and sufficient condition for correct thinking. These three laws have traditionally been called:

1) The Law of Identity: “A is A” or “Anything is itself”. If a statement is true, then it is true. It asserts that every statement of the form pp is true, that is it is a tautology. 

2) The Law of Excluded Middle: Anything is either A or not A. Any statement is either true or false – asserts that every statement of the form p V p is true, it is a tautology. 

3) The Law of Contradiction: Nothing can both be A and not A. No statement can be both true and false – asserts that every statements of the form pp is false. 

These are now explained below: 

Law of Identity 

By law of identity, we mean that everything is the same with itself and different from another, e.g., B is B and not B. It says that if any statement is true, then it is regarded only as true. It also means that every statement of the form pp must be true, so the statement is a tautology. Aristotle also talks about the laws of identity. 

It has been also said that each thing like of universal or a particular is composed of its own unique set of features. Things, which have the same essence refers to the same thing, whereas things that have different essence refers to the different thing. Those who violate the law of identity are engaged in the informal logical fallacy, we mean equivocation. 

Law of Non-Contradiction 

This law of non-contradiction comes under the domain of logic. It says that “one cannot say of something that it is and that it is not in the same respect and at the same time”. This definition is given by Aristotle. 

It also says that no statement can be both true and false. So, it has been said that every statement of the form p⋅~p must be false, then that statement is regarded as self-contradictory. It has been said that the law of non-contradiction or the principle of non-contradiction means the same thing. It also states that contradictory statements cannot both be true in the same sense at the same time. By the law of non-contradiction, we mean an expression of mutually exclusivity.

Law of Excluded Middle

The law of excluded middle comes under the domain of logic. It also means the principle of excluded middle. 

• It says that either the proposition should be regarded as true or its negation should be regarded as true. 
• It is also known as the law or principle of the excluded third. 
• It says that a statement is either true or false. 
• It has been said that there is no middle ground between being true and being false. 

This law excludes a middle ground between truth and falsity. It has been also state that every statement of form pv~p must be true, then that every such statement is regarded as tautology. 

Pushbacks:

The law of identity has been attacked on the ground that things change, and are always changing. Thus, for example, statements that were true of the United States when it consisted of the 13 original states are no longer true of the United States today with 50 states. But this does not undermine the principle of identity. The law of identity is true, and it does not interfere with our recognition of continuing change. 

The law of non-contradiction has been attacked by on the ground that the world is replete with the inevitable conflict of contradictory forces. The reply is that there are conflicting forces in the real world is true, of course – but to call these conflicting forces “contradictory” is an ambiguous use of that term. Labor unions and private owners of industrial plants may indeed find themselves in conflict – but neither the owner nor the union is the “negation” or the “contradictory” of the other. The principle of contradiction understood in the straightforward sense in which it is intended by logicians is unobjectionable and perfectly true

The saw of excluded middle has been objected to on the ground that it leads to a “two valued orientation” that is, everything in the world must be either “white” or “black”. This objection also arises from the misunderstanding. Of course, the statement “This is black” cannot be jointly true with “This is white” – where “this” refers to exactly the same thing. But although these two statements cannot both be true, they can both be false “This” may be neither black nor white; the two statements are contraries, not contradictory. The contradictory of the statement “This is White” is the statement “it is not the case that this is white” and one of them must be true and the other false. The principle of excluded middle is inescapable.

The Consensus of the Experts Say.....

Do a Google search for the term “global warming consensus” and you’ll find one of the first link for “global warming consensus” is to this NASA webpage with the title “Scientific Consensus” and the following statement:

Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities. In addition, most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position.

Note: this isn't a discussion about global warming, but the misuse of the "Consensus of the Experts" in discussions.

Here’s what Michael Crichton had to say about “scientific consensus” back in 2003 when he gave a lecture at the California Institute of Technology titled “Aliens Cause Global Warming”:

I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had.

Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus. There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. 

In addition, let me remind you that the track record of the "consensus" is nothing to be proud of. Let’s review a few cases. In past centuries, the greatest killer of women was fever following childbirth. One woman in six died of this fever. In 1795, Alexander Gordon of Aberdeen suggested that the fevers were infectious processes, and he was able to cure them. The consensus said no.

In 1843, Oliver Wendell Holmes claimed puerperal fever was contagious, and presented compelling evidence. The consensus said no.

In 1849, Semmelweiss demonstrated that sanitary techniques virtually eliminated puerperal fever in hospitals under his management. The consensus said he was a Jew, ignored him, and dismissed him from his post. There was in fact no agreement on puerperal fever until the start of the twentieth century. Thus, the consensus took one hundred and twenty-five years to arrive at the right conclusion despite the efforts of the prominent “skeptics” around the world, skeptics who were demeaned and ignored. And despite the constant, ongoing deaths of women.

There is no shortage of other examples. In the 1920s in America, tens of thousands of people, mostly poor, were dying of a disease called pellagra. The consensus of scientists said it was infectious, and what was necessary was to find the “pellagra germ.” The US government asked a brilliant young investigator, Dr. Joseph Goldberger, to find the cause. Goldberger concluded that diet was the crucial factor. The consensus remained wedded to the germ theory.

Goldberger demonstrated that he could induce the disease through diet. He demonstrated that the disease was not infectious by injecting the blood of a pellagra patient into himself, and his assistant. They and other volunteers swabbed their noses with swabs from pellagra patients, and swallowed capsules containing scabs from pellagra rashes in what were called “Goldberger’s filth parties.” Nobody contracted pellagra.

The consensus continued to disagree with him. There was, in addition, a social factor-southern States disliked the idea of poor diet as the cause, because it meant that social reform was required. They continued to deny it until the 1920s. Result-despite a twentieth century epidemic, the consensus took years to see the light.

Probably every schoolchild notices that South America and Africa seem to fit together rather snugly, and Alfred Wegener proposed, in 1912, that the continents had in fact drifted apart. The consensus sneered at continental drift for fifty years. The theory was most vigorously denied by the great names of geology-until 1961, when it began to seem as if the sea floors were spreading. The result: it took the consensus fifty years to acknowledge what any schoolchild sees.

And shall we go on? The examples can be multiplied endlessly. Jenner and smallpox, Pasteur and germ theory. Saccharine, margarine, repressed memory, fiber and colon cancer, hormone replacement therapy. The list of consensus errors goes on and on.

Finally, I would remind you to notice where the claim of consensus is invoked. Consensus is invoked only in situations where the science is not solid enough. Nobody says the consensus of scientists agrees that E=mc2. Nobody says the consensus is that the sun is 93 million miles away. It would never occur to anyone to speak that way.

Related: 

The notion of a monolithic “science,” meaning what scientists say, is pernicious and the notion of “scientific consensus” actively so. The route to knowledge is transparency in disagreement and openness in debate. The route to truth is the pluralist expression of conflicting views in which, often not as quickly as we might like, good ideas drive out bad. There is no room in this process for any notion of “scientific consensus.” From John Kay’s 2007 op-ed “Science is the pursuit of the truth, not consensus“:

Objection A: You are advocating for science denial,

Reply: No, I am advocating for critical thinking. Simply saying "the consensus of the experts say x" isn't critical thinking - Don't blindly follow anything. Educate yourself, argue the data, follow the argument wherever it leads. 

Objection B: What are the experts basing their opinions on?

Reply: That's the question. If you have read and understood what they were saying, one should never rely on the Consensus of the Experts Fallacy. 

Objection C: I would rather go with the majority of experts than go with the minority.

Reply: That is an intellectually dead way of "thinking".

Objection D: As a layman, consensus is proxy evidence due to the fact I am not capable of evaluating the evidence myself.

Reply: Then you probably should be engaged in discussions, just say that you are not intellectually capable of evaluating the evidence. 

Objection E - Let's argue the data, then instead of seeking to use "scientific consensus on climate change" as justification alone to be skeptical of anthropogenic climate change. Here is my first argument with supporting data: https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/

Reply: You missed the point of the post, as I noted this isn't a discussion about global warming, but the misuse of the "Consensus of the Experts" in discussions.  But for an alternate view of the climate crisis, you can click here

Objection F - Your last line seems to indicate that you don’t think experts came to a consensus from arguing the data and following the evidence where it led, and I would love to know why you think that.

Reply: The last line is: Argue the data, follow the argument wherever it leads. I'm saying check the experts. Don't them at their word. 

Objection G - Could they be wrong? Sure, it’s happened before, but here’s the thing. Every single time it’s been shown to be wrong, it’s been done with new data.

Reply: Or with a better explanation of the current data. But here’s the thing, simply citing the expert consensus isn't data driven. If you've read and understood why the experts says X, then you should make that argument instead of citing their consensus.

Objection H - Then we can dismiss anything that more than three religious scholars agree on? Good to know.

Reply: I didn't say anything about dismissing scholars; I said get down into the data and their arguments.....

Objection I - Consensus of the experts isn’t the evidence. The evidence is why the experts agree, generally. Experts don’t say "it’s true because we agree"—they say it’s true because of XYZ.

Reply: But that not how some play it. They find a consensus and cite it sans any sort of examination. They can't or won't evaluate the data, they can't or won't think critically, they can't or won't come to a conclusion other than what the experts have said. 

Objection J -  If you didn't want people to make the connection that you were a climate change denier, you shouldn't have referenced it 

Reply: Yes, I considered changing that, but I thought that post was clearly about the misuse of scholarly consensus, it wouldn't be a problem. Then I thought it would be fun to see how many thought I was denying science or climate change. Turns out, it's a lot!

Objection K - This all screams as an excuse to dismiss this consensus rather than put the work in ot actually takes to challenge the consensus in the academic community.

Reply: Except I said the exact opposite: Don't blindly follow anything. Educate yourself, argue the data, follow the argument wherever it leads. 

Objection L - Consensus kind of is evidence as far as you the layman is concerned, lest you throw expert knowledge in the bin and give in to the Dunning Kruger effect.  Now of course it isn't "proof" and is in no way a winning argument, but it can certainly be used in conjunction with the supporting evidence that lead to the consensus in the first place.

Reply: First, if I have the data, evidence, and argument, and critically examine them, why would I need a scholarly consensus? 

Secondly, to simply accuse someone you disagree with as experiencing the Dunning Kruger effect isn't the same sas showing that thier understandingg of an issue is incorrect. It's basically an ad hominem attack. 

Skepticism is Not Critical Thinking

Skepticism as defined by Webster's as:

1) an attitude of doubt or a disposition to incredulity, either in general or toward a particular object

2) a: the doctrine that true knowledge or knowledge in a particular area is uncertain
b : the method of suspended judgment, systematic doubt, or criticism characteristic of skeptics

3) doubt concerning basic religious principles (such as immortality, providence, and revelation)

Critical thinking is the act or practice of careful goal-directed thinking (i.e applying reason and questioning assumptions) to solve problems, evaluate information, discern biases, etc. The 
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy states: One could sum up the core concept that involves these three features by saying that critical thinking is careful goal-directed thinking.

Skepticism is just a small part of the critical thinking process, the beginning part.  

The problem with Skepticism is that we know almost nothing with certainty, save a few mathematical or logical proofs almost everything we know is via The Inference to the Best Explanation. Since almost everything is 1) not known with certainty and 2) our knowledge of anything can change with better data or better explanations than skeptical "doubting" is a very low intellectual bar.  

Skeptics make the mistake of not recognizing that skepticism, a specific attitude within critical thinking, is NOT the entire process. 

Skeptics need to get into the intellectual mainstream, offer better explanations of the data, reasons why something is better understood as false rather than true; just relying on "I don't know" when in an intellectual corner; it's intellectually weak out.   

God of the Gaps fallacy

Arguments from ignorance [which is what a GOTG is] occurs when evidence against one proposition is offered as the sole grounds for accepting an alternative. Thus, they have the following form:

Premise: Cause A cannot produce or explain evidence C.

Conclusion: Therefore, cause B produced or explains C.

It's easy it is to identify this type of fallacy, and how unreasonable it would be to use such thinking to try to prove any conclusion. Atheists and other skeptics often claim that the argument for God’s existence based on intelligent design is guilty of this type of illogical thought. How can the theist who is using the design argument show that it is not a God-of-the-gaps argument from ignorance?  

To depict proponents of the theory of intelligent design as committing the GOTG fallacy, critics must misrepresent the case for it. This misrepresentation of the design argument looks like this:

Premise: Material causes cannot produce or explain specified information.

Conclusion: Therefore, an intelligent cause produced the specified information in life.”

If this were how the design argument actually worked, there would be serious problems with it, and the skeptic would be right to challenge it as false. However, that this misrepresentation of the design argument leaves out a very important premise. The design argument includes the positive evidence that it implies:

Premise One: Despite a thorough search, no materialistic causes have been discovered with the power to produce large amounts of specified information necessary to produce the first cell.

Premise Two: Intelligent causes have demonstrated the power to produce large amounts of specified information.

Premise Three: Intelligent design constitutes the best, most causally adequate explanation for the origin of the specified information in the cell.”

Notice that there is no gap in the properly stated form of the design argument. 

1) We have been doing scientific research for hundreds of years. 

2) We have discovered that intelligence is the only entity capable of producing large amounts of specified information. 

3) We see large amounts of specified information in cells. 

4) Therefore, we are forced by what we know about intelligence from centuries of scientific research to conclude that the specified information in cells is the product of an intelligent Creator. 

On the other hand, we also know enough about how matter behaves to conclude that it is impossible to get the specified information from materialistic causes. Origin-of-life experiments have been done for decades that have shown how matter does and does not behave. In every single experiment done to date, we have seen that natural processes not only do not produce life, but they cannot produce life. This is not a gap in our knowledge. The argument for design is based on what we know to be scientifically valid in every instance.

Why, then, are so many skeptics convinced that the design argument is a God-of-the-gaps logical fallacy?

The reason for this is a prior commitment to naturalism - the idea that only the physical exists. If a person begins by assuming that there has to be a naturalistic process that brought about life, then that person is forced to see a gap in our current knowledge, since no naturalistic processes have ever (in any experiment under any circumstances) even come close to producing a living cell. 

What chemical [or other natural] process first produced life? Since no such chemical process has been discovered, we are told this is simply a gap in our current knowledge that will be filled in the future. 

Nevertheless, our present lack of knowledge of any such chemical process entails a “gap” in our knowledge of the actual process by which life arose, only if some materialistic chemical evolutionary process actually did produce the first life. Yet if life did not evolve via a strictly materialistic process but was, for example, intelligently designed, then our absence of knowledge of a materialistic process does not represent “a gap” in knowledge of an actual process. Stephen C. Meyer (2021), Return of the God Hypothesis: Three Scientific Discoveries that Reveal the Mind Behind the Universe pp 424

An illustration that a “gap” only exists if a person begins by assuming that all scientific explanations must be materialistic:

Imagine someone mistakenly enters an art gallery expecting to find croissants for sale. That is, he thinks the gallery is actually a fancy bakery. Observing the absence of pastries and rolls, such a person may think that he has encountered a gap in the services provided by the gallery. He may even think that he has encountered a gap in the staff’s knowledge of what must definitely be present somewhere in the gallery. Based on his assumptions, the visitor may stubbornly cling to his perception of a gap, badgering the gallery staff to “bring out the croissants already,” until with exasperation they show him the exit. Ibid., p. 424.

The moral of the story? The gallery visitor’s perception of a gap in service or in knowledge of the location of the croissants derives from a false assumption about the nature of this establishment or about art galleries in general and what they typically offer to visitors.

There is only a gap if a person will not accept what we know scientifically to be true. We “do have extensive experience of intelligent agents producing finely tuned systems such as Swiss watches, fine recipes, integrated circuits, written texts, and computer programs.” Furthermore, “intelligence or mind or what philosophers call ‘agent causation’ now stands as the only known cause capable of generating large amounts of specified information.” And “it takes a mind to generate specified or functional information, whether in ordinary experience, computer simulations, origin-of-life simulation experiments, the production of new forms of life, or, as we now see, in modeling the design of the universe.” Ibid., pp 338, 187, 385

Conclusion

The design argument for the existence of God is not an argument from what we do not know, or we do not understand about the Universe and life in it, but instead is an argument based on the aspects of nature that we have reasons to conclude to be true. As John Lennox has stated, “I see God not in the bits of the Universe that I don’t understand, but in the bits that I do.” 

Why the Puddle Analogy Fails against Fine-Tuning

Many people are fascinated by the fine-tuning argument for God’s existence. The late Christopher Hitchens called the fine-tuning argument “the most intriguing.” Physicist Sean Carroll referred to it as “the best argument that the theists have when it comes to cosmology.”

But just like other arguments for God’s existence, there are rejoinders. One popular-level response is called “the puddle analogy.” The analogy was originally expressed in Douglas Adams’s The Salmon of Doubt: Hitchhiking the Galaxy One Last Time:

This is rather as if you imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, “This is an interesting world I find myself in—an interesting hole I find myself in—fits me rather neatly, doesn’t it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!” This is such a powerful idea that as the sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and as, gradually, the puddle gets smaller and smaller, frantically hanging on to the notion that everything’s going to be alright, because this world was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise. I think this may be something we need to be on the watch out for.

Some think the puddle analogy deals a fatal blow against the fine-tuning argument. If the pondering puddle shouldn’t be surprised about its existence, we shouldn’t either. But does the analogy work? Are advocates of the fine-tuning argument engaging in “puddle thinking?”

Arguments from analogy are a kind of inductive argument. Basically, they reason that because two things are similar, what is true of the first is also true of the second. For an argument from analogy to work, the analogy has to be a good analogy

Of course, no analogy is perfect—there will always be differences. But for an argument from analogy to work, the similarities have to be significant, and the differences have to be superficial. But if the opposite is true—if the differences are significant and the similarities are superficial—well, then, we have a problem. In other words, if the analogy fails, so does the argument.

Puddle Problems

In a recent article titled “The Trouble with Puddle Thinking,” astronomers Geraint Lewis and Luke Barnes explain why this analogy fails.

Consider more closely the puddle’s reasoning. Let’s name our puddle Doug. He has noticed a precise match between two things: 1) his shape and 2) the shape of the hole in which he lives. Doug is amazed! What Doug doesn’t know is that, given A) the fluidity of water, B) the solidity of the hole, and C) the constant downward force of gravity, he will always take the same shape as his hole. If the hole had been different, his shape would adjust to match it. Any hole will do for a puddle. [Emphasis added.]

This is precisely where the analogy fails: any universe will not do for life. Life is not a fluid. It will not adjust to any old universe. There could have been a completely dead universe: perhaps one that lasts for 1 second before recollapsing or is so sparse that no two particles ever interact in the entire history of the universe. [source]

In the puddle analogy, the puddle can exist in any hole. That’s how puddles work. The shape of the hole is irrelevant to the existence of the puddle. If you change the shape of the hole, the shape of the puddle changes, but you always get a puddle.

The problem is, life doesn’t work like that. Life cannot exist in any universe. The evidence from fine-tuning shows that a life-permitting universe is extremely rare. If you change certain conditions of the universe  just slightly, you cannot get life anywhere in the universe. For instance, slightly increase the mass of the electron or the up quark, and get a universe with nothing but neutrons. No stars. No planets. No chemistry. No life.

The significant difference:   We know that changing the dimensions of a hole does not affect the existence of the puddle. Any old hole will do. There is no fine-tuning for puddles. However, we also know that changing the conditions of the universe does affect the existence of life. There is fine-tuning for life.

So, the puddle analogy has a problem. And it’s a big one. It’s a false analogy. The analogy doesn’t work because getting a life-permitting universe is vastly different from getting a puddle-permitting hole.

If God has perfect foreknowledge how can humans have free will?

What is critical to free will is not being caused to do something by causes other than oneself. It is up to me how I choose, and nothing determines my choice. Philosophers sometimes call this agent causation. The agent himself is the cause of his actions. His decisions are differentiated from random events by being done by the agent himself for reasons the agent has in mind. And from determined events that are outside their control.

Thought experiment:

Let's say Grace builds a time machine and decides to travel to the future and see what her friend Anna has for breakfast tomorrow. After she comes back to the present day, she now has prior knowledge of a freely chosen future event. Therefore, there doesn't seem to be any inconsistency with God having perfect foreknowledge of the future and humans have free will.

Objections:

A) Let's say Anna changed her mind at the last second and decided on something else for breakfast.

The reply: Grace would have seen that, and Grace would know of that change. Remember, we are speaking about perfect foreknowledge of the future

B) The idea of a time machine is incompatible with logic and therefore not possible for even an omnipotent being to accomplish, so using it as an example doesn't really resolve the issue.

The reply:

A time machine may not be compatible with physics/metaphysics, but it’s compatible with logic. But it's not meant as the way it was done, but more as an illustration of how prior knowledge doesn't refute the idea of freewill.

The Inference to the Best Explanation

Offering an inference to the best explanation occurs when we conclude that the best available explanation of the current data is probably true because it’s the best addresses all or most of the data or observations. A little more formally:

S is a state of affairs; a collection of data, facts, observations, givens.
H hypothesis, would, if true, explain S.
No other hypothesis [A, B, C] can explain S as well as H does.
Therefore, it is probable that H is true.

Inferences to the best explanation are common in all fields of inquiry, including scientific, and everyday life. For a more thorough exploration:

Inference to the Best Explanation - Peter Lipton

Inference to the Best Explanation - An Overview

Pushbacks

We may be choosing the best of a bad lot, and that we have no way of knowing whether the truth is contained in our set to begin with.

Reply: Scientists don't claim to have completely certainty on any scientific fact, no fact from any field of inquiry does. We've gone from Newtonian physics to special and general relativity, and guess what? Einstein's work is likely to only be partially correct. Qualms with IBE on this account are off base. Abductive inferences [IBE] are used in every field of inquiry, including science, history, linguistics, and everyday life,

Explanations help us to understand why something happened, not simply convince us that something happened. However, there is a common kind of inductive argument that takes the best explanation of why x occurred as an argument for the claim that x occurred. For example, suppose that your car window is broken and your iPod (which you left visible in the front seat) is missing. 

The immediate inference you would probably make is that someone broke the window of your car and stole your iPod. What makes this a reasonable inference? What makes it a reasonable inference is that this explanation explains all the relevant facts (broken window, missing iPod) and does so better than any other competing explanation. In this case, it is perhaps possible that a stray baseball broke your window, but since (let us suppose) there is no baseball diamond close by, and people normally don’t play catch in the parking garage you are parked in, this seems unlikely. 

Moreover, the baseball scenario doesn’t explain why the iPod is gone. Of course, it could be that some inanimate object broke your window and then someone saw the iPod and took it. Or perhaps a dog jumped into the window that was broken by a stray baseball and took your iPod. These are all possibilities, but they are remote and thus much less likely explanations of the facts at hand. The much better explanation is that a thief both broke the window and took the iPod. 

This explanation explains all the relevant facts in a simple way (i.e., it was the thief responsible for both things) and this kind of thing is (unfortunately) not uncommon—it happens to other people at other times and places. The baseball-dog scenario is not as plausible because it doesn’t happen in contexts like this one (i.e., in a parking garage) nearly as often, and it is not as simple (i.e., we need to posit two different events that are unconnected to each other—stray baseball, stray dog—rather than just one—the thief). Inference to the best explanation is a form of inductive argument whose premises are a set of observed facts, a hypothesis that explains those observed facts, and a comparison of competing explanations, and whose conclusion is that the hypothesis is true. The example we’ve just been discussing is an inference to the best explanation. 

Explanation: The hypothesis that a thief broke the window and stole your iPod provides a reasonable explanation of the observed facts.

Comparison: No other hypothesis provides as reasonable an explanation.

Conclusion: Therefore, a thief broke your car window and stole your iPod.

Notice that this is an inductive argument because the premises could all be true and yet the conclusion false. Just because something is reasonable, doesn’t mean it is true. After all, sometimes things happen in the world that defy our reason. So perhaps the baseball-dog hypothesis was actually true. In that case, the premises of the argument would still be true (after all, the thief hypothesis is still more reasonable than the baseball-dog hypothesis) and yet the conclusion would be false. 

But the fact that the argument is not a deductive argument isn’t a defect of the argument, because inference to the best explanation arguments are not intended to be deductive arguments, but inductive arguments.  That isn’t a defect of an inductive argument, it is simply a definition of what an inductive argument is! As we’ve seen, in order to make a strong inference to the best explanation, the favored explanation must be the best - i.e. the most reasonable. 

But what makes an explanation reasonable? There are certain conditions that any good explanation must meet. The more of these conditions are met, the better the explanation. The first, and perhaps most obvious condition, is that the hypothesis proposed must actually explain all the observed facts. 

Commonly acknowledged criteria for inference to the best explanation

1. Explanatory scope. The best hypothesis will explain a wider range of data than will rival hypotheses. An explanation has explanatory scope if it

• makes fewer assumptions
• accounts for more facts or observations
• more details of causal relations are provided
• depends less on authorities and more on observations
• is more falsifiable (more testable by observation or experiment
• offers greater predictive power (if it offers more details about what should be expected to be seen and not seen);

2. Explanatory power. The best hypothesis will make the observable data more epistemically probable than rival hypotheses; an epistemic possibility is a statement that may be true given the current state of knowledge about the world. For example, "Given what we know about the weather, it might rain tomorrow" is an epistemic possibility

3. Plausibility. The best hypothesis will be implied by a greater variety of accepted truths, and its negation implied by fewer accepted truths than rival hypotheses.

4. Less ad hoc. The best hypothesis will involve fewer new suppositions not already implied by existing knowledge than rival hypotheses.

5. Accord with accepted beliefs. The best hypothesis, when conjoined with accepted truths, will imply fewer falsehoods than rival hypotheses.

6. Consistency: Is the hypothesis consistent with other established facts or theories?

7. Comparative superiority: The best hypothesis will so exceed its rivals in meeting conditions (1) through (6) that there is little chance of a rival hypothesis’s exceeding it in fulfilling those conditions.

It’s Turtles All the Way Down - the Infinite Regress Problem

An Infinite Regress entails the inconceivable; an actual infinity. This quantity, in different contexts, yields different answers; many of which are in contradiction.

For instance, consider 2 + 3 =5. Thus, 5 - 3 = 2

So,

Infinity + Infinity = Infinity. 

Therefore; Infinity - Infinity = Infinity

However

Infinity + 0 = infinity. Therefore, infinity - Infinity = 0; but that's different to the answer above.

There are two major forms that the infinite regress problem takes.

Epistemic Regress: Knowledge is a true, justified belief. In every chain of logical reasoning, each step depends on the previous one (its justification) for its existence. For the sake of understanding, let’s take a step T1 in a logical argument. T1 relies on T2 for its justification, and similarly, T2 relies on T3, which again would require a justification in the form of T4. T1 will never be supported adequately, because the needed series of support would be infinite, and we would never have any justified knowledge. Thus, it has been proposed that reason is the basis for knowledge.  

 
Metaphysical Impossibility: This can be explained by taking an ontological example. Things in the external world are taken to exist because of the parts that they are composed of. These things (parts) must also depend on their own parts for existence. This chain continues till infinity, which many thinkers claim to be impossible.

Everything in the world has an origin. Something cannot come from nothing. Yet, something must have come from nothing if we want to be logically coherent . The idea of an origin-less universe seems absurd. Especially in light of the scientific evidence for it.

Those who propose an infinite/infinite universe, what do you do about the problem of an infinite regress of causes?

In other words, a series of things that are each ontologically dependent on the next; in this case, the singularity, the singularity -1, the singularity -2, the singularity -3....

How do we reach the singularity if there is an infinite/endless series of causes?

For example, if a giraffe had an infinitely long neck, he would die of starvation - even if he had eaten for an infinite amount of time - since the food would always have another inch to travel before it reached the stomach. So this string of infinite causes would always have another casual step to take before the singularity happened.

To say that "that there is no first moment, because every moment is preceded by earlier moments" is to be logically and philosophically hanging in midair.

Christians would say that God is a metaphysically necessary [efficient] cause for the material universe, thus avoiding regress problems.

Infinite regress can be a problem because it can lead to answers that never terminate. When people ask for justification for something, they want an answer that is compelling. However, answers that result in an infinite regress aren't rationally compelling

It’s more logical to believe in an uncreated Creator or First cause than an infinite universe. Why? Because If God had a creator [or a cause had a cause] who brought Him into existence, then we could ask “who created that God?” 

Ockam’s Razor - the philosophical principle used in science that suggests you shouldn’t multiply causes to explain something beyond what’s necessary - would suggest that we not have a regression of creators at all. The one who brought our universe into being is the uncreated one.

This isn’t special pleading for God. This is what the atheist has typically said about the universe; that the universe is uncreated and eternal in its existence. No atheist was asking “Who created the universe”? They thought the universe was “Just there,” that it was a brute fact. Although that conclusion is now invalidated by powerful scientific evidence and philosophical arguments. 

Objection - There is no problem whatsoever traversing an infinite chain of events. Every event on that chain can logically be reached. The only thing you cannot do with an infinite chain of events is reach the beginning or the end because those don't exist. Every event is logically reachable. The only way you could not reach your destination on an infinite chain is if you set your destination to the end, but that's because by definition there is no end and no beginning. Every other destination is not only possible but guaranteed.

Reply This makes no sense.

Let's say that the Big Bang is 0 and our present time is 14.  Yes, we can count from -99 to 0 and then to 14.  But first you have to get to -99, and then you have to get to -100, then you have to get to -101, then you have to get to -102, ad infinitum. It's absurd to think because we can count to 100 that the problem of the infinite regress has been solved. 

Reason is the basis for knowledge

Reason is the basis for knowledge and therefore the way to determine what is true.

For example, under empiricism [the philosophical view that knowledge comes from sensory experience and observation] they will use reason to formulate a hypothesis, construct an experiment, and evaluate the result. So, an empiricist will, in fact must, appeal to logic/reason to obtain knowledge. And this is true for any other schools of thought – everyone will appeal to reason to defend their view as well as criticize/evaluate other views

Reason or Critical thinking is the act or practice of careful goal-directed thinking (i.e applying reason and questioning assumptions) to solve problems, evaluate information, discern biases, etc. 

The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy states: One could sum up the core concept that involves these three features by saying that critical thinking is careful goal-directed thinking. We use Critical thinking for analyzing and/or evaluating information gathered from various sources as a guide to convictions and action in everyday life and in all fields of inquiry. 

A Christian may say that revelation is knowledge, but they must still reason from the Scriptures, as in Acts 17:2,17

Note: if one uses reason to criticize my claim, that's actually validating it - you are using reason to gain knowledge as to the validity of my claim.

Objection 1: Rationalism begs the question - the rationalist will use a rational argument as a premise for the conclusion of his argument.

Reply: To this, I say no, it is testing a hypothesis. Test all epistemic theories, see that all use reason.

Objection 2: I can use reason to gain knowledge about the Lord of the Rings. I can gain knowledge about a fictional universe, but that doesn't make it magically true for our reality

Reply: If one is gaining knowledge about the LOTR, then they should be able to gain the information that it's fictional.

Objection 3: One must use evidence along with reason to conclude they’ve learned something about reality and not about something in their (or someone else’s) imagination. Otherwise, there is no way to differentiate between knowledge about reality and knowledge about fictional universes.

Reply: First, notice that you did not use evidence in this, so you seem to have refuted your own point. Secondly, you cite "reality"; what is it, and how do you know?

Objection 4: Your appeal to “reasoning” as absolute authority is circular. You assert that “reasoning” is the ultimate authority because that is the only reasonable means for ascertaining truth.

Reply: Circular reasoning is when the proposition is supported by the premises, which are supported by the proposition, creating a circle in reasoning where no useful information is being shared.

But my argument stems from the fact I investigated other schools of thought until it dawned on me that everyone uses logic or reasoning to make their case, including empiricists, skeptics, intuitionists, etc.

Note: These pushbacks come from previous conversations about this topic.

To sum up,

1) reason alone can be used alone to gain knowledge 

 

2) every other method must employ reason to gain knowledge, otherwise their preferred epistemological model doesn't work

 
3) All criticisms of my view will invariably use reason to validate their analysis.

Other posts you may be interested in:

Skepticism is Not Critical Thinking

The Inference to the Best Explanation

The Consensus of the Experts Say... 

Atheism is a non-reasoned position/view

The Three Laws of Logic

Justified True Belief

Philosophical Naturalism is logically self-refuting