RE: Argument against atheism
December 25, 2011 at 11:58 am
(This post was last modified: December 25, 2011 at 12:06 pm by Perhaps.)
As I have stated earlier, in the discussion which you apparently took no time to read, I combine both metaphysical solipsism and objectivism. I realize the fact of existence. I realize the effect of consciousness on our perception. But I also realize that other consciences exist, which automatically negates solipsism.
I provided both sets of axioms to Rhythm only because he believes there are none at all. Please, I beg of you, read what I say, fully, and try to comprehend before you blatantly attack me out of presumptuous opinion of my words.
As for 'I think, therefore I am', it is Descartes' attempt at proving the existence of self. This is a deductive fallacy in the truest sense. To say that a thought exists is only to say that a thought exists, no therefore may be established. He uses induction to come to a determination of causality. This is why both world views have axioms related to the existence of self. They are true only because they must be true. You cannot prove them. If I start with the conclusion and attempt to commit a proof by contradiction I am unable. One is not able to state 'I do not exist' and then negate that statement. One is not able to say that 'consciousness does not exist' for the same reason. If you begin with the axiom and try to prove it by deductive logic the same is true. One must assume the original axiom is true in order to prove it. For example, 'I exist' can only be proven by assuming that I truly do exist.
I am well versed on the epistemology of Evidentalist Foundationalism - or objectivism, but we can go into it if you wish.
I provided both sets of axioms to Rhythm only because he believes there are none at all. Please, I beg of you, read what I say, fully, and try to comprehend before you blatantly attack me out of presumptuous opinion of my words.
As for 'I think, therefore I am', it is Descartes' attempt at proving the existence of self. This is a deductive fallacy in the truest sense. To say that a thought exists is only to say that a thought exists, no therefore may be established. He uses induction to come to a determination of causality. This is why both world views have axioms related to the existence of self. They are true only because they must be true. You cannot prove them. If I start with the conclusion and attempt to commit a proof by contradiction I am unable. One is not able to state 'I do not exist' and then negate that statement. One is not able to say that 'consciousness does not exist' for the same reason. If you begin with the axiom and try to prove it by deductive logic the same is true. One must assume the original axiom is true in order to prove it. For example, 'I exist' can only be proven by assuming that I truly do exist.
I am well versed on the epistemology of Evidentalist Foundationalism - or objectivism, but we can go into it if you wish.
Brevity is the soul of wit.
