Argument against atheism

[The Grand Nudger]

---

Oh jesus fucking christ. Nothing I've said is true if I don't exist or if reason is not the source of truth? Except that even if I didn't exist, and reason were not the source of truth, I (as a phantom) still produce results through it's application (though the true credit may lie elsewhere).

---

Why? -Results.

---

To you, assumption may be the root of everything, to me, it is not. Science does not "prove" anything, it offers explanations that fit the information available, even if that information is illusory, and even if existence is illusory, it offers an explanation which is useful in producing results.

---

Why? -Why what, why doesn't science prove anything? Because thats not what it was designed to do. Why is it useful in producing results if everything were illusory? That's inexplicable isn't it? (Which is why I dont argue for that proposition) Nevertheless, it is, as the results are the very evidence for it's effectiveness.

---

Of course it doesn't, because it's a product of our minds. The things which it describe do, even if all is an illusion, as they are a separate illusion from ourselves (as best as we can determine, by "gasp"...evidence) though a part of the same overall illusion.

---

Why? -Again, that the evidence that leads us to conclude this produces results, the argument that you proposes leads to exactly nothing but a thought, not even remotely useful or demonstrable.

---

Of course there are limits, but none even approaching anything that you've suggested.

---

Why? -Because you seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of what science is and does?

---

You may be happy to assume that arrogance is part of an assumed humans assumed nature...I prefer evidence. Well, look at that, we've reached the same conclusions by different methods. What do you think the difference between your method of simply assuming all of this and my method of demanding evidence might be?

---

Why? -Now this one is just you being a douche, answering a direct question with "Why?" as though it even formed a coherent thought. Next.

---

Ive had someone else try and tell me what my assumptions were before, by the analogy of a car. Claiming that I "assumed the uniformity of nature" when I got into my car. Lemme tell you the same thing I told him. I don't assume that my car will work. I don't assume that based upon the fact that I've gotten in my car, turned the key, and nothings happened. I know that my car should work, as long as nothing has changed, because it worked once before (at least). Every time I turn the key and my car starts it gives me yet another instance to refer to which relieves me of requiring any assumptions. It may not start tomorrow, I acknowledge that. Thing is, it just keeps starting. The same is true with science. What was once a set of assumptions has become a statement of facts, by simple repetition and production of results.

---

Why? -Another worthless question meant to appear as honest inquiry...there isn't even anything to "why" in this one, as it is an explanation of "why" already. There's no rabbit hole here.

---

Assumptions are an impediment to science, not a requirement.

---

Why? -Because our assumptions have led to unproductive wastes of time and been shown to be very flawed many many times.

Look, still no assumptions. This is starting to get tedious. My toddlers pull the "why-as-ad-naus" on me every day buddy. Bad choice of approaches....I have experience...lol. Thanks for the hide tag practice though