Argument against atheism

[amkerman]

You work the other way around downbeat?

I can't believe I am actually responding to your garbage. But here it goes

"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".
- and how do we know these things in your argument? What evidence
do you rely on to make such claims?

That statement relys on three assumptions. That pixies exist, that trees exist, and that things(trees at least) can be planted.

Your primary statement, that, "pixies plant all trees" would not be an assumption at all, but a hypothesis which is based upon the three assumptions and likely evidence.

Your argument is simply contrary to my statement. You prove my point.

---

Downbeat how do you define "god"? Once you define what god is god is easily refuted. You are simply conjuring a god in your imagination and then refuting it.

[Epimethean]

Amkerman, please get back to something that has a bearing on reality. You have been masturbating for page upon page upon page, despite some people's requests for you to stop doing the philosophical funky chicken, and all you continue to do is choke that bird.

[Perhaps]

What subject has been changed? You made an assumption about consciousness, and then used this assumption to draw an inference. The assumption was not a very good one, the inference (a justification of assumptions no less) a bad one. I couldn't have asked for a better example.

What on earth made you think that I was implying that mollusks lacked consciousness? That would be where your argument for the justification of assumptions would lead. That assumptions and axioms about the "fundamental blah blah....." are required or we would be unable to do anything. Well, show me a mollusks assumptions, a mollusks axioms, and yet they are able to do many things. You replied that mollusks did not have consciousness (apparently because you thought that I would make such a strange claim....), and that as such they did not perceive things the way that we do. I wouldn't argue on the latter, but the former can be discredited via evidence. They solve problems, can learn to perform tasks, remember those actions, and some even have a wonderful little camo routine that is the very definition of awareness of self and surroundings. No change of subject, and still no assumptions, at least not coming out of this corner.

Before you respond....again...with "you're assuming the axiom of reason". Not quite. I'm applying reason to evidence and reaching a conclusion based off of a starting point called observation. If reason would lead me to conclude that an octopus did not posess consciousness I would doubt my use of reason first, then the evidence, then reason itself, then evidence itself again, and at some point something would have to break, or I would have to admit that the phenomena was in-explicable. That I did not possess enough knowledge about the subject, or the proper tools, and could not proceed. See all of that going down that has nothing to do with assumptions?

Or....I could go on until the end of time with a philosophical argument, full of assumptions......likely learning nothing whatsoever.

This is precisely why I continue to attempt to explain to you why a conclusion reached by the use of philosophy alone is not equivalent to a conclusion reached by science. That the limits of philosophy begin and end with the fact that it deals merely in concepts, whereas other methods continue further to establish whether or not a concept has application outside of our own minds.

This is the perfect time for me to make my point, ever more clear.

There are two types of assumptions made in life. Those of axioms - made without our choice, they simply are self-evidently true, and form all other 'truths'. The other is those of knowledge assumptions - like the one I made about the consciousness of mollusks.

I am arguing the former, and you are arguing the later. Science, your words, our discussion, these thoughts, would not make sense without the assumed axiom that reason is the source of truth. None of them would exist if the axiom: I exist was not true. Once these are established, all thoughts are sensible if they apply reason, our discussion is sensible if it applies reason, your words are sensible if they apply reason, and science is sensible if it applies reason.

What you have a problem with, as do I, is when people make assumptions about the way the world works (which is the field of science) and assert them as truths. If I want to know how the world works I will refer to science, but if I want to know why the world works I will refer to philosophy. Science is the most useful tool we have at our dispense, but it is limited by our understanding of self.

I hope that made my point a little more clear. I think we agree, we're just referring to two different concepts and posing them against each other, when we really just need to realize that they are two different concepts.

[Welsh cake]

Ironically, atheism, as I define it, is illogical, not the other way around.

You don't get to define atheism. Ever.

Rhythm has given you far too much breathing space. Prove theism is logical or shut up.


And WTF is Perhaps babbling on about?

[Perhaps]

Perhaps if you would take the time to read what I said, it would not appear to be babbling.

[Epimethean]

LOL. We have in the past complained about rabid theists showing up and shitting about; now, we have been invaded by the "philosopher kings." I am coming to want to call the twain the "phrontisterion."

By the by, philosophy does not answer "why" the world works in any ultimate way.

[Perhaps]

LOL. We have in the past complained about rabid theists showing up and shitting about; now, we have been invaded by the "philosopher kings." I am coming to want to call the twain the "phrontisterion."

By the by, philosophy does not answer "why" the world works in any ultimate way.

There is no ultimate answer, the answer is always subjective to the self. We perceive the world, simple as that. If I want to know why I perceive the world the way I do, I must answer the question for myself.

If I want to know how consciousness exists then I can refer to science - which will tell me it is a large number of neurons firing to create a conscious being from a number of non-conscious beings. This does not, and cannot, answer the question of why consciousness exists. It is a subjective answer, which we have to answer to the best of our ability as an individual.

[Epimethean]

So, do tell, what are you on about in this thread? What is your "why?"

[Perhaps]

So, do tell, what are you on about in this thread? What is your "why?"

I don't have a 'why' as of yet. I'm not arrogant to the point of thinking I know. I only responded to this thread because of the initial discussion of metaphysical solipsism vs. objectivism, which then led to a discussion with rhythm about the axioms of existence.

I do not have an argument against atheism as the thread states, I simply added my thoughts to a discussion non-related to the OP.

I understand that what I say can be frustrating, and it may seem as though I'm ignoring or not understanding what you are saying, but I assure you I do read every comment thoughtfully and fully. I take time to write my responses, and I prefer discussion to arguments.

My phillosobabble does have a purpose. I don't assert things about how the world works, but simply why. I am a avid student of Etiology (the study of causation) and it pervades my thought process.

[Epimethean]

No, I'm fine with the philosophy. I enjoy stroking one out as much as the next guy, even if the money shot gets swallowed. It simply comes to the point of wondering whether we're going to spend the rest of this thread's lifespan getting axiometrically more and more distant from Amkerman actually working out an argument against atheism. If so, the thread should get a quicksand sticky.