From atheism to tentative agnosticism

[Inigo]

My arguments have a god as a CONCLUSION. In other words, I haven't put god in, I've gotten god out.

So your presuppositions lead to a conclusion. But they're still presuppositions right?

All arguments have premises. If you know of an argument without any, I'm all ears.

But any attempt to show anything exists, relies on an argument. And all arguments have assumptions or premises. If the argument is valid then the strength of the argument is determined by the plausibility of the premises. Those premises can be defended in turn, of course. If your argument has premises that are more plausible than their negations, then your argument wins. This doesn't mean that the conclusion is true, it just means it is more reasonable to believe that conclusion than any other.

That's how arguments work. That's how evidence works. That's how a rational person tries to figure out what the hell is going on.

By all means reject reason, but if that's the only way to avoid drawing my conclusions that's not really very impressive. That's like avoiding drawing my conclusions by shooting yourself in the head. It'll work, but it was kind of pointless.

---

I think that you just might be projecting...a little bit...onto the fabric of the cosmos...lol?

Yes, if atheism is true that is what I am doing. That's the point. Those external instructions don't really exist if atheism is true, it is just a trick my mind is playing on me. For if atheism is true how on earth can there exist external instructions with which we automatically have reason to comply? It isn't possible. There appear to be such things. Humans have argued about their content for millennia. But such debates would be like debates over whether father Christmas beats his wife. Father Christmas doesn't exist, so both sides are fundamentally mistaken. Simiarly, if atheism is true morality doesn't exist. So all normative moral claims are false.