Argument against atheism

[houseofcantor]

I would pick the axiom: I exist.

Good lad!

Seems that at least some one was listening to my "I exist and I can prove it, and anyone that says otherwise is stupid" rant.

Were you ranting? I'm sorry, I was too busy ranting to listen to your rant.

I disagree. Your existence is a simulation in my mind from the words I read from the screen, from which I assume "human." My existence is a similar simulation, one of mind; as mind lacks empirical definition, i do not exist.

I'm only human if I accept the biological classification of homo sapiens sapiens and I have no reason not to; what I object to is the existence of identity. John Cantor and Norfolk and Chance are both I, both simulation; where is the existence?

[amkerman]

Norfolk: what existed before the big bang? While science may hypothesize as to an answer to that question no one has a viable or accepted explanation. Indeed the red shift observed in cosmic bodies on which the hypothesis of the big bang is based has not been proven to be due to the Doppler effect. Most assume this to be the case simply by analogy. Many nevertheless assume the big bang to be true. The core of all observation is based upon assumptions. Evidence is then found to bolster those assumptions but the assumptions themselves can not be proven. Gravity, time, big bang, god, evolution, morality, truth, existence, mathematics, consciousness, objectivity, space

[Epimethean]

So, because we don't yet know what came before the big bang, then god? LOL. If we're going to use the scientific method, let's stick to science and not superstition.

http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/201...ature.html

If you're want to start throwing in the philosophy of science, there's plenty of criticism against that "field."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_science

[downbeatplumb]

Norfolk: what existed before the big bang? While science may hypothesize as to an answer to that question no one has a viable or accepted explanation. Indeed the red shift observed in cosmic bodies on which the hypothesis of the big bang is based has not been proven to be due to the Doppler effect. Most assume this to be the case simply by analogy. Many nevertheless assume the big bang to be true. The core of all observation is based upon assumptions. Evidence is then found to bolster those assumptions but the assumptions themselves can not be proven. Gravity, time, big bang, god, evolution, morality, truth, existence, mathematics, consciousness, objectivity, space

But you cant just say 'and therefore god'.

Sometimes 'we dont know' is a valid answer.

[amkerman]

Downbeat: completely irrelevant. My response is to a line of thought that science is not based on assumptions.

No one here is claiming, "and therefore God". God has nothing to do with it; indeed, I included "God" in my non comprehensive list of axioms people must assume to be true in order for the world to function depending on their worldview. "God" is an assumption; it is an axiom one must accept in order for anything else to make sense. Just like the Big Bang. people assume it to be true and then prove everything else based on that assumption and other evidence.

---

But the initial assumption cannot be proven.

---

Epimethean: same response. No one here is claiming, "and therefore God". You persist in making things up simply to attack them. Attributing words to me simply so you can discredit them is intellectually dishonest.

[downbeatplumb]

Downbeat: completely irrelevant. My response is to a line of thought that science is not based on assumptions.

No one here is claiming, "and therefore God". God has nothing to do with it; indeed, I included "God" in my non comprehensive list of axioms people must assume to be true in order for the world to function depending on their worldview. "God" is an assumption; it is an axiom one must accept in order for anything else to make sense. Just like the Big Bang. people assume it to be true and then prove everything else based on that assumption and other evidence.

---

But the initial assumption cannot be proven.

I work the other way round.

I look at evidence and research and curent hypothosise that work and go by that.

Lets see what happens if we assume that pixies plant all trees.

Well we know that tree planting pixies exist, trees exist, therefore pixies plant trees, this is proof positive in the existance of tree planting pixies.

This is exactly the kind of bollocks argument that you present for god.

There are lots of theories for what could have led to a big bang.

So far none of them have enough evidence to sway opinion one way or the other because the lack evidence.

As does the god hypothosis, but the god hypothosis has failed in so many of its past predictions that it can be safely discounted.

[Epimethean]

Other theories have at least some connection between things. "Goddidit" is pure Paleolithic silliness. Perhaps, rather than sitting, spinning on defining what if if does not mean if but means but, we can get back to talking about some hypothetical "argument" against atheism?

[amkerman]

Epimethean I followed your links. The first one is an interesting hypothesis for which there is no empirical evidence. Funny. The second is a wikipedia link... Does philosophy of science have critics? Does science have critics? Does philosophy? I fail to see your point.

[downbeatplumb]

Even if the big bang theory, evolution and quantum physics were all fundamentally wrong I still would not be a theist.

Because that would still not be evidence FOR god.

[Epimethean]

Epimethean I followed your links. The first one is an interesting hypothesis for which there is no empirical evidence. Funny. The second is a wikipedia link... Does philosophy of science have critics? Does science have critics? Does philosophy? I fail to see your point.

So, you followed the link to a page and then didn't read it. OK.