Argument against atheism

[Darwinning]

How do you prove that something exists?

You do not prove that things exist, you cannot. Even if you postulate the hell out of consciousness you cannot prove anything exists at all. You can make a credible argument and estimate a probability.

(In practical daily life, I'll say things are true when I am in fact only pretty certain they are; just like everyone else.)

This is not an argument that has one answer, this is a difference of beliefs. You cannot prove anything exists, neither can I.

I'm very surprised that you would make the statement that things can factually exist without the need to be consciously recognized as being such.

I did not say things existed (at least, I do not recall; if I did, it was erroneous shorthand). I believe things exist. I see no issue believing things exist outside my consciousness without being recognized.

[amkerman]

darwinning, if consciousness is an emergent function of complex systems, it is not a property of the universe, but just something that can be found within the universe, like snowflakes. But holding such a belief necessitates that you don't actually believe snowflakes exist outside of your own mind. You argue for a physical universe that give rise to non-physical phenomenom. You admit that these non phyiscal phenomena are the only means humanity has to percieve physical reality, but that the non-physical phnomena do not exist apart from the idea that they arise from interaction of physical forces. If that is true then nothing we percieve consciously atually exists apart from our ideas about what consciousness is "some interaction of physical forces". If something does not exist apart from our ideas of what it is, it is not real. If we believe consciousness is not real, we can not believe that observations made through consciousness are. While you could believe there are physical forces acting in the universe that gives rise to conscious thought, it would be illogical to hold any belief about what those forces were. all physical forces are observations of a conscious mind, that consciousness you don't believe to exist apart from your idea of it, so it is not real. If it is not real, then the observations made by through consciousness can not be believed to be real either. Snowflakes then exist only in your conscious mind. While something that resembles a snowflake may or may not actually exist in the pysical world, any belief that such is true is based solely on something which you describe doesn't actually exist as inherent to the universe.

[Darwinning]

(This conversation is going too fast for me to respond. Sorry. I try to keep up.)

[The Grand Nudger]

There was a brief moment where you seemed to be on the verge of coherence Amker. The moment has passed.

if consciousness is an emergent function of complex systems,
(it appears to be exactly that)

it is not a property of the universe, but just something that can be found within the universe, like snowflakes
(k, so far so good).

But holding such a belief necessitates that you don't actually believe snowflakes exist outside of your own mind.
(you just went off the rails)

The above has been the formula for every statement you've made so far, and it's been a bad formula for the same reasons every single time. You're missing bits in the middle, and your conclusions don't follow.

Try:
Logic is rational, but atheism presupposes that everything comes from material sources.
Logic isn't material, so atheism lacks any objective source for logic.
Without an objective source for logic, atheism cannot employ logic.
Therefore atheism is self refuting.
Since atheism is refuted, theism must be true.
God exists.

or-

There are some objective logical/moral absolutes.
We can have concepts of these logical/moral absolutes.
These logical/moral absolutes are not physical (you can't find them within the natural world).
These logical/moral absolutes are therefore conceptual.
Concepts require a mind.
Since the logical/moral absolutes are true everywhere they must exist within an infinite mind.
That mind is God.
God exists.

Then, sprinkle in a bit about how people who believe in this or that (any concept that can be defined as a logical/moral absolute) have a belief that must stem from a belief in what is "most correctly termed" a monotheistic deity. You may have to add in a bit to justify monotheism. From the language and definitions you've been insisting upon, and the conclusions you've been attempting to draw, this seems to be the argument you're looking for.

[Mister Agenda]

amkerman, first I would like to salute you on your honest style of discussion. Lately I've run into a series of people who can't give on the slightest point, no matter how absurd or counter-factual. Your willingness to really consider what we're saying is refreshing.

I think we may be at an impasse, and I apologize if this summation is too simple: It seems to me that you've just renamed objective reality, God. That may define God into existence for you, but it only works as an argument if others accept the definition. Sure, if you say objective reality is God and I find it probable that objective reality actually exists, you can say that I believe in God as you've defined it. If that pleases you, feel free, I'll just mentally translate 'objective reality' whenever you say 'God'. I assume that by 'argument against atheism' you mean an argument for the existence of God. Technically you have succeeded in your argument according to the terms you're using, but it is a pyrrhic victory: you've had to give up every attribute of God that distinguishes it from the rest of existence. I think Dawkins referred to pantheism as 'sexed-up atheism'. It's a long way round to avoid thinking of yourself as an atheist.

[Darwinning]

I guess I subscribe to ontology and epistemology as my mind set.

I had gathered as much. :-)

As a philosopher, it is sometimes hard for me to get out of this mindset, but i'm always open to hear others.

New ideas is the only reason I am here.

Computing Scientist myself, with a specialty in computational intelligence (A.I). I see logic and emergence in action almost daily; I guess that colors my perception.

Let's assume that things can exist without consciousness, and that consciousness is an emergent property of that which is. If consciousness never emerges then how can the existence of anything be proven?

It can not. To make matters worse, your consciousness is fallible, so even if you could logically prove anything, it could still not be trusted to be true. We can however, make things seem probable (and thus believable).

I daily life, we do not distinguish between that which is believed to be probable and that which is true. But if we are being completely and technically precise (and we're going in that direction here) we can never prove anything to be objectively true.

I'm not arguing that this proof isn't subjective based upon consciousness. But I would rather take the stance of something which I can conclude, as opposed to something which is a toss up of personal preference. I can say that if consciousness is then it follows that existence is determined by consciousness.

But if you make claims based on a subjective assumption about consciousness that you cannot prove, you are basically tossing up some personal preference! Why make the assumption at all when it adds nothing to the validity of your argument?

However, if consciousness is emergent then I could make any claim and say it's true, simply because I said so.

I don't think you could. I don't think you can claim anything to be objectively true. Not that objective truth cannot exist, just that you cannot claim to know it does or what it is.

Once again, I support a ontological and epidemiological mindset when approaching the topic. It is true that just because someone is deaf doesn't mean sound does not exist. In that case, sound is completely subjective based upon that person's perception of the world. However, if ears, or hearing mechanisms, never existed then sound - that which is heard - never existed.

It would not exist in an ontological and epidemiological mindset. I however, have no problem believing that there are things I cannot (yet) perceive Even better, I'm pretty sure there are many such things, because I see new things every day. I just don't know what those things are. That doesn't stop me from reasoning about the things I do perceive.

Personally, I want to think the way you do. It would allow for alternative dimensions, other universes, abstract thoughts, etc. Unfortunately I am confined to my world of subjectivity based upon my consciousness.

I am also confined to my world of subjectivity based upon my consciousness. But why do you believe there is not room for for alternative dimensions, other universes, abstract thoughts outside of your perception?

---

amkerman, first I would like to salute you on your honest style of discussion. Lately I've run into a series of people who can't give on the slightest point, no matter how absurd or counter-factual. Your willingness to really consider what we're saying is refreshing.

Seconded!

[amkerman]

epimethean sorry i wasnt trying to twist your words. I too am having trouble keeping up wit the speed of the converstaion. Typo's are sure to abound. If you believe that consciousness is real though, then you believe it exists apart from your personal ideas about what consciousness is. if consciousness exists apart from your ideas about what it is, it has to be a property of the universe. The only things which science or humanity believes to be inherent to the universe are forces. Humans do not exist because they are inherent to the universe, they exist because the universe has (through various processes) created them. Those processes are the only things that can be said to be inherently real. the things they create (everything in the universe) are thought to be mere chance of the interactions of universal forces. Those creations are not believed to exist outside of our ideas about what they are. If we could not see the suns light, or feel its warmth, humanity would not beleive the sun existed. Stars are not inherent to the universe, everything in the universe is not a star. We simply have notions about what stars are, and are able to observe them in the physical universe. The sun can not exist apart from our ideas about what it is.

Gravity, for instance, however, we believe to be inherent in the universe. Even if we had no ideas for why things tended to seek a center mass, science would never the less except it as true. It is an observable process which acts on physical things, but it is not physical. The same can be true of magnatism. If consciousness is real exists independent of our ideas of what it is or how it is caused, would be described as a force of nature.

Darwinning: "you cant be confident in your reasoning, because the brain from which your consciousness arises is fallible"- yes, that's true if you believe consciousness is an emergent function of complex systems. I believe that consciousness, and everything I perceive, is real beyond my own mind, however. I believe reality is objective. While I can't know that my reasoning is correct (and I admittedly don't, although I believe it is, if only some of the time) I can be confident that it might be correct, because I believe that some things are inherently true, and others inherently false.

[Perhaps]

"Personally, I want to think the way you do. It would allow for alternative dimensions, other universes, abstract thoughts, etc. Unfortunately I am confined to my world of subjectivity based upon my consciousness."


You can free yourself from that by adopting a bigger set of toys, one of which is admitting that things are even when we are not. Consciousness does not define existence.

A pretty good essay on this subject:

http://www.bigissueground.com/philosophy...orld.shtml

Very well written essay.

I think we're addressing two different ideas here though. The essay refers to fundamental idealism and fundamental realism, while addressing some steps in between the two. Solipsism holds the belief that all things are mentally conceived and that nothing external exists. Physicalism holds the belief that all things are physical and exist without the need of consciousness.

We, on the other hand, are discussing the possibility of existence without consciousness under consideration of a specific instance. If nothing conscious ever existed or came into being - as it is emergent - could things exist? Personally, I've been anesthetized three times, and each time I was not conscious (this also occurs during deep, dreamless sleep). During that time I remembered nothing, felt nothing, heard nothing, saw nothing, smelled nothing. When I awoke hours later it seemed as if it had only been the blink of an eye.

The point of that story is to show that I was not aware of anything. Nothing existed to me during those time periods. It is one thing to consider the idea of a physical, external world when there is more than one conscious being alive. But imagine if, as was stated earlier, consciousness never came into being - as it is emergent. The fact that there would be nothing to experience existence would effectively negate the fact that things existed.

Opinions on that specific instance?

[The Grand Nudger]

It wouldn't negate existence, just any perception of it, cmon people.....What you're basically saying here is that if human beings weren't around to percieve anything, nothing would be perceived by human beings (just as one example), well no shit! Rocks don't depend upon our consciousness for existence, we depend upon our consciousness to perceive their existence.

[Darwinning]

if consciousness is an emergent function of complex systems, it is not a property of the universe, but just something that can be found within the universe, like snowflakes. But holding such a belief necessitates that you don't actually believe snowflakes exist outside of your own mind.

Does the world cease to exist when I close my eyes? Perhaps, but I do not believe that to be the case.

The label "snowflake" only exists in my mind (and perhaps you have a similar label), but the cold, white, icy thing could still be a real thing.

You argue for a physical universe that give rise to non-physical phenomenom. You admit that these non phyiscal phenomena are the only means humanity has to percieve physical reality, but that the non-physical phnomena do not exist apart from the idea that they arise from interaction of physical forces. If that is true then nothing we percieve consciously atually exists apart from our ideas about what consciousness is "some interaction of physical forces".

It can exist alright, you're talking about whether I can prove and know it exists. I have said I cannot, but neither can you.

If something does not exist apart from our ideas of what it is, it is not real. If we believe consciousness is not real, we can not believe that observations made through consciousness are.

I do not believe that the observations we make are by definition true. They do seem to help me predict future perception, so they have some merit.

While you could believe there are physical forces acting in the universe that gives rise to conscious thought, it would be illogical to hold any belief about what those forces were.

I disagree. It would be illogical to claim I know what those forces are (I don't believe I have). I can believe all I want.

all physical forces are observations of a conscious mind, that consciousness you don't believe to exist apart from your idea of it, so it is not real. If it is not real, then the observations made by through consciousness can not be believed to be real either. Snowflakes then exist only in your conscious mind. While something that resembles a snowflake may or may not actually exist in the pysical world, any belief that such is true is based solely on something which you describe doesn't actually exist as inherent to the universe.

More of the same. I'll stop repeating myself. But I'll try to summarize.

My perceptions, reasoning and logic abilities are not perfect. I have seen enough evidence to that point during my lifetime. Therefore, everything I perceive must be regarded with suspicion; including rational thought and reasoning. I believe without proof that a real physical world exists, because I have been able to predict perceptions with a certain regularity. I use models to describe that world, but I do not believe those models are without fault.

Does that help?