Argument against atheism

[Perhaps]

Philosophy, pure philosophy with nothing attached, is useful for determining whether or not a concept can be rationalized, but isn't so useful in determining whether or not it is anything more than a concept.

I wish you wouldn't edit your posts after I respond to them. Makes me look a bit childish. However, I'll carry on from what you edited.

By this statement I'm assuming you mean that philosophy can't determine whether the concept is true or not? (or any of the properties of the concept for that matter).

For example. I can imagine a great many logically consistent things. Nonetheless, they needn't be actual things, they can still be products of my imagination entirely. Was it Void that said something like:

"Imagine [insert fantastic claims here]...no one gives a shit what you can imagine"...I have to find the source post on that one, I saw it in someone's sig.

I agree..? (although I'm not sure what this is implying)

---

Which angle would you like to approach your existence from? Do you have any physical evidence? You're asking the question so that would count. Of course you could be a figment of my imagination, and we could make some interesting predictions based on that theory that could be falsified. Or perhaps we're both figments of someone else's imagination, again predictions could be made. Perhaps neither of us exist, or nothing exists, and then we could craft an entirely different model (except in the case of nothing existing, and no model would be needed, because here we are again asking the question so that can be dust-binned out of hand, something, if only this question..exists) which would again be rife with falsifiable predictions. This axiom isn't even much of an axiom, nor is it a statement best handled by philosophy because it is a claim to material reality, and we have better tools for that. In short, you don't have to accept or reject this axiom on it's face. You can look to falsify or confirm. Keep in mind that the axioms of the past are often no longer with us today in the present, so apparently "axioms" (and even their status as "axioms") are not unassailable. They have a history of failing their own definitions of themselves.

It would look a lot like observation, evidence, experimentation, and argumentation over those three things, rather than argumentation over argumentation.

I don't think you are quite clear on what an axiom is or allows. All logic and reason follow from an axiom, which is why they can't be applied to the axiom. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axiom

Axioms do not change.