RE: Argument against atheism
December 19, 2011 at 2:21 pm
(This post was last modified: December 19, 2011 at 2:23 pm by Anomalocaris.)
(December 19, 2011 at 2:12 pm)amkerman Wrote: 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?
