Argument against atheism

[Darwinning]

We cannot see the forest for the trees because we cannot "see" the forst and we can not "see" the trees. Sight is the process of light entering a humans cornea and hitting the receptors on the retina which causes an electrical charge. Those receptors then fire and send a signal down the optic nerve to the occiptal lobe, where the brain processes the electrical signals. consciousness then interprets what the brain has processed into a mental image and we perceive the forest and the trees through our own consciousness. There is no reason to believe the tree or forest exist apart from consciiousness. It is illogical. to believe in the forest or the trees unless one also believes that consiousness is inherently real. If consciousness is inherently real it must exist apart from our ideas an notions of what consciousness is (definition of "real"). For that to be true it must be a property of the universe and not an emergent function of the brain (breif glossing of why- everything in the universe is created by universal forces. those things we interpret in the physical world and form ideas about through our conscious mind. The only things we exist apart from our observations of them, are forces of the univere such as magnatysm, gravity, etc.). A belief that consciousness exists as a promary force in the universe could correctly be called a belief in God (without going back over why that is, and it doesn't NEED to be called God, it can be called any infinnite number of things. (one could define it scientifically, spritually, philisohpically, etc, the actual belief remains the same, because it exists independently of our ideas for it).

And we're back where we started. Shame. You were doing so well.

It is illogical.

Yes. You are using your consciousness to do the reasoning here. What leads you to conclude that your consciousness is anything but illogical?

---

You do realize we could go on forever like this, do you?