Argument against atheism

[amkerman]

Right on hoc. I agree that our perspectives are similar hoc, and it is of no consequence to me that you are an atheist at all, you're AOK in my book. As you have correctly stated I have come come to a different conclusion (but honestly not out of desire, at least not as I see it) than you.

However the conclusion I have reached is not that consciousness is part of the physical universe, but that consciousness is responsible for the creation of the physical universe, or to state your inverse, that the physical universe is part of consciousness.

[Perhaps]

Perhaps-, these are all the same assumption. The assumption of existence, which I've handled at length. I won't repeat myself. Merry Christmas BTW.

We can agree to disagree.

Merry Christmas.

[houseofcantor]

I've always been a math guy, so I'm content with numbers.

I'm sitting in my crib rolling up a smoke pecking at a keyboard; that's existence, with everything else being metaphysics. In such a manner evolution is incorporated into my Pure Number hypothesis; what I know in life is from a human perspective, to think of consciousness as an emergent property of number is to not limit the number of consciousness.

God has always been some kinda limit.

[Norfolk And Chance]

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

I have, and it's fucking babble.

All of it.

[Welsh cake]

Simple answer is I can't because God is undefinable and incomprehensible.

If you can't comprehend it why do you think its real? If you can't provide a positive clear ontology for the entity you are trying to describe why then should we take you seriously or give you a minute of the day?

Woefully incomplete and bad answer is: God is consciousness as universal force responsible for the creation of all. God is infinity. God is 2+2=5; a perfect circle. Alpha and Omega. All that was, is, or will be. God is the perfection the ideal... the perfection of love...

I agree, its a terribly incoherent and meaningless ontology, but I'll give them credit where due, at least most theists are TRYING to define the God they think is real by assigning various attributes to it. You sir, have done fuck all except waste our time by backtracking and beating the dead horse that is your fallacy of untestability.

To quote a good movie, "multiply [that] by infinity, and take it to the depth of forever, and you will still have barely a glimpse of what [God is]."

You bastardised the quote from "Meet Joe Black" which was an exchange describing his love for another, not God, and worse still the poetic statement of drivel that there is something "greater than the concept of infinity" is utterly nonsensical. If you find that appealing enough to post it here you obviously don't understand the definition of the word "infinite".

I don't know why you call God a delusion when you can't prove God doesn't exist.

I don't even know what you're talking about. Like with dragons and unicorns I have never met any "definition-less God" in my life. Even if I knew what you were trying to address and could form a mental construct of it in my head, its not my job to disprove the non-entity.

You are making the claim of an "incomprehensible deity", however unlike most theists you don't have any burden of proof to fulfil (you should be cringing at this point). Know why? Because your 'claim' is so utterly meaningless and contrived it gets rejected in any epistemic dispute as "complete and utter nonsense".

I don't see god, science doesn't believe in god

Science tests claims. It does not acknowledge god hypothesises because there's nothing to investigate or verify.

Atheism is a response to religion. It's reactionary. It has nothing to do with God.

No, its a response to theistic claims as unproven in that they haven't sufficiently met their burden of proof.

[amkerman]

Welsh u just mad bro. Don't be so angry bro. Bro. BRO!

I know what movie I was quoting from. I did not bastardize it. It is quoted correctly. It's funny that you attack my use of the quote... Telling. You just made up a fallacy (or more likely stole the term from someone else who made it up) of "incomprehensible deity". That's like calling "infinity" a fallacy merely because it can't be comprehended.

Honestly welsch you started off (58 pages ago) so well but since then it has become readily apparent that you are simply a fanboy of atheism. Science does not try to verify God because God has not been acceptably operationally defined in scientific terms. Simple as that. Not because there is nothing to test, but because science doesn't know what to test or how to test it. As i have stated before, as science progresses to the point where it better understands consciousness I expect that to change.

[Epimethean]

Science does not try to verify god in the same way that telescopes are not used to verify dreams.

[amkerman]

I agree ep. Not going to get any argument from me there.

[Norfolk And Chance]

You can't verify invisible, made up stuff.

[amkerman]

Like dark matter?

---

Like gravity?

---

Like consciousness?