Argument against atheism

[Perhaps]

IF ontology, axiology and philosophy (I'm fucked if I'm going to read it on your advice) say I cannot prove myself or anything, then they are WRONG. Yes, WRONG. Starts with a "W", ends with a "G". Has a fucking "RON" in the middle.

Do you understand? WRONG.

WRONG.

That is the opposite of RIGHT. Just in case you or any other babblers still don't get it.

I'd sincerely appreciate if you could write down a proof of your existence. Mind you, a true proof assumes no axioms, it must be true objectively without the need for assumption.

Are you just a random word generator?.

Every word in that response has a meaning, it only requires you to look them up if you don't know what that meaning is.

I probably shouldn't but I just have to ask. How can you be sure the words are random if don't know them and you won't look them up?

For the record, I too do not know what axiology is about but if I thought it would get me fucked I might just read some.

Axiology is the study of value. Ontology is the study of existence or being. Philosophy is the love of wisdom. My personal favorite though, Etiology is the study of causation (Essentially the study of 'why').

---

The only reason I began with a philosophical analysis of the topic was because it related to the premise of the original argument. I'm not one to impose deep thought on others if they don't wish to think deeply. I don't think, however, that this argument can be simply thrown away because of its philosophical nature.

That being said, I do agree that any God which man claims to know or understand can be determined false by methods which man also knows such as science. If, however, God is objective and simply exists outside of our conscious being we cannot apply something that is subjective to ourselves - namely science - to the outside existence.

If we do apply a subjective analysis to an objective existence then we create a warped view of something which is outside of ourselves entirely. This warped view could be disproved using our subjective analysis again, but the objective existence still remains, no matter how we choose to subjectively view it.

I am fully aware that just as an objective existence outside of ourselves cannot be disproved, it also cannot be proven. It all comes back to the discussion we had pages back about metaphysical solipsism vs. objectivism. Once one assumes the answer to this discussion then they are able to construct the rest of their thought processes and beliefs.

---

[Edit:] I would like to also add a question for any who feel they wish to answer. It relates to a thought experiment I've been constructing for the past month or so. Assuming evolution is true, is there an end goal to evolution? Does it conceivably have a purpose or reason? If the answer is no then does that simply mean that evolution is and that the process of natural selection will never end even as 'perfection' is reached?