Argument against atheism

[Perhaps]

Let's do this in reverse order.

Ok, let's.

The scientific method exists as a set of instructions regarding how one would "do science", that's all it is. No assumptions required

You are assuming the axiom: reason is the source of truth is indeed true. You are also assuming the axiom: I exist, is true.

Any given observation may not exist in actuality, or our observations may be so flawed as to be roughly equivalent to non-existentence. This is acknowledged and part of the process described above is meant to handle that eventuality. Observation itself may not exist, but then the observation that observation may not exist would not exist. You have a serious problem with forming non-cognitive propositions. Nonetheless, science would then leverage what "appeared to be observations" which is essentially what it does in any case, as these observations are always open to review. No assumptions required.

Yes, the observation that no observation exists, is in-fact an observation. This would mean that observation could never be disproved, just as thought can never be disproved. Once again, this depends on the axiom: reason is the source of truth, and the axiom: I exist.

If people did not exist, then what appear to be people would be using what appear to be observations, by leveraging a notion which they have termed "the scientific method" to make conclusions about their non-existent existence. You do realize that you have a harmful addiction yes? lol.

I have a harmful addiction? Please elaborate. However, this just further confirms that science could not prove the non-existence of people. Which is my original statement. It has to assume that people do exist. It can't exist if people do not.

Why would it be impossible, because you assume so? Here you are mistakenly calling this or that an assumption and then you end it off by making an assumption of your own. Color me unimpressed. By the by, some scientists and some theories do propose that we are actually a simulation. If this were shown to be factually accurate then all of your criticisms regarding the possibility of factual non-existence would be true, but the conclusions you seem to have drawn from that would be terribly inaccurate, whilst the conclusions reached by science would remain intact, with the small addition of "these are the laws of the simulation". It's honestly inescapable, because we've built a damn fine system. These things are not assumptions, they are assessments of what "appears to be", regardless of whether or not they actually are. Open to review, and every claim very much subject to doubt and skepticism (necessary parts of the system). Again, it is the search for explanations, not some elusive objective truth, that once discovered is discovered once and for all. That sort of search is one that has been extremely unproductive, and has largely been a search undertaken by philosophy (without the aide of other useful things, like empirical methods.....which might explain why it's been so damned unproductive in the first place).

Philosophy is the essentially the study of self. It does not search for objective truth, simply subjective truth. Science searches for objective truth. Also, I am making the assumption that it is impossible. I am doing so because I can't converse with you if I don't. (I can explain if you need me to).

In this existence, whatever it's composition or factual state, empirical methods and science work. They work for us even if we are not actually real, as they obviously have an ability to alter our fantasy world along predictable lines. Your objections are the product of misunderstandings about science (and a strong fondness for philosophy), and I mean that in the friendliest way. I'll take them both, I like results. I'll criticize them both when they fail to produce results.

Science works as a method through which we are able to understand our perspective of the world. Philosophy works as a method through which we are able to understand our perspective.

---

There's a line for me as well, where science ceases to be satisfying and I prefer philosophy. Specifically with regards to fuzzy concepts of the human mind which elude detection. Things like "good", and "evil" in their purest form.

We are the same in this respect. I prefer science, but I am very open to criticizing it's knowledge or truth. I am in love with philosophy but realize it's limitations in understanding the world we live in. I am a deep thinker, but understand the need for 'shallow' thought to go through life.