Argument against atheism

[amkerman]

I've termed it God because that is how what I have come to understand God is. If one believes that leprechauns, magic beans, and unicorns do not exist objectively, necessarily you must believe that things actually exist or do not exist outside of your own subjective experience of the world. In order for one to believe that objectivity to exist outside of subjective experience, necessarily you must believe that certain things are true in the universe. The only way humans perceive truth is through their consciousness. For things to be true in the universe, consciousness then must be a primary property of the universe. A belief that consciousness is a primary property of the universe would most correctly be termed a belief in "God".

[LastPoet]

Ummmm or that I can be part of Rhizo's mind... He tottally wouldn't like that

[Welsh cake]

So far, what he has given might lead to this:

All men breathe
I am a man
Therefore god exists

To quote a line from the film Leonard Rossiter - Le Petomane

"You breathe through your arse?"

[Anomalocaris]

I've termed it God because that is how what I have come to understand God is. If one believes that leprechauns, magic beans, and unicorns do not exist objectively, necessarily you must believe that things actually exist or do not exist outside of your own subjective experience of the world. In order for one to believe that objectivity to exist outside of subjective experience, necessarily you must believe that certain things are true in the universe. The only way humans perceive truth is through their consciousness. For things to be true in the universe, consciousness then must be a primary property of the universe. A belief that consciousness is a primary property of the universe would most correctly be termed a belief in "God".

For things to become true when Amkerman inserts the words "necessarily", "must" and "correct" into a string of propositions consisting of terms of arbitrarily variable definition, bring about Amkerman must be a primary property of the universe. A belief that bring about Amkerman to be the primary property of the universe would most correctly be termed a belief in "God".

Who can argue with Amkerman about that?

[amkerman]

It would most correctly be termed god because consciousness as a primary function of the universe would mean that there was a universal law that acted on all things in thee universe and was present everywhere in the universe unbound by time or space. It would be best understood as a single law or standard rather than multiple different standards. It would be a unifying theory of everything. A belief in an ever-present consciousness which pervades all parts of the universe for which humans are incapable of negating or changing is what I have come to understand "God" is, in almost all religions the will of God is final, it is ultimate truth. That is what consciousness as a primary property of the universe would be, so I have called it "God".

[Epimethean]

Look at him twist-a the meanings! A reg-a-lar knotty boy-o, he is.

Still daft as an empty pickle jar, o-course.

[Anomalocaris]

Would it be insulting to a piece of wood to talk to it as if it were intelligent? Would I be dishonoring its praise worthy attribute of being dumb as a post?

[Minimalist]

I have a definition problem: is this philosobabble or a word salad?

What it is is bullshit from the word 'go' and this clown thinks that by continuing to talk about stuff that he clearly does not understand he is somehow making sense. I'd say he's fairly typical of most theists who don't know their asses from their elbows.

Let me spell it out for him. Your invisible sky-daddy is not logical it is a figment of your imagination. Provide evidence that the fucker exists or stop wasting our time.

[amkerman]

lastpoet: in a purely subjective universe it is entirely possible that everything we experience are purely figments of human consciousness, so your contention that you could be all in Rhizo's mind could very well be accurate. We would have no way of knowing. In a purely subjective universe each individual may very well be understood to be a "God". No truth would actually exist besides the truth you personally perceived. The world and universe would begin and end with each persons consciousness.

[Epimethean]

But Min, he has! By sheer virtue of man's belief in things for which he can actually obtain evidence, amkerman has shown ricoculously that god must exist or man would have no way of describing these things up to and including the time at which he discovers his theories to be correct. Amker has it such that, if we believe we can build a refrigerator, it must be god, and once we DO build it, we have proof of god.

He's a right Neo-Platonist nutjob, he is.