Argument against atheism

[Darwinning]

I guess I subscribe to ontology and epistemology as my mind set.

I had gathered as much. :-)

As a philosopher, it is sometimes hard for me to get out of this mindset, but i'm always open to hear others.

New ideas is the only reason I am here.

Computing Scientist myself, with a specialty in computational intelligence (A.I). I see logic and emergence in action almost daily; I guess that colors my perception.

Let's assume that things can exist without consciousness, and that consciousness is an emergent property of that which is. If consciousness never emerges then how can the existence of anything be proven?

It can not. To make matters worse, your consciousness is fallible, so even if you could logically prove anything, it could still not be trusted to be true. We can however, make things seem probable (and thus believable).

I daily life, we do not distinguish between that which is believed to be probable and that which is true. But if we are being completely and technically precise (and we're going in that direction here) we can never prove anything to be objectively true.

I'm not arguing that this proof isn't subjective based upon consciousness. But I would rather take the stance of something which I can conclude, as opposed to something which is a toss up of personal preference. I can say that if consciousness is then it follows that existence is determined by consciousness.

But if you make claims based on a subjective assumption about consciousness that you cannot prove, you are basically tossing up some personal preference! Why make the assumption at all when it adds nothing to the validity of your argument?

However, if consciousness is emergent then I could make any claim and say it's true, simply because I said so.

I don't think you could. I don't think you can claim anything to be objectively true. Not that objective truth cannot exist, just that you cannot claim to know it does or what it is.

Once again, I support a ontological and epidemiological mindset when approaching the topic. It is true that just because someone is deaf doesn't mean sound does not exist. In that case, sound is completely subjective based upon that person's perception of the world. However, if ears, or hearing mechanisms, never existed then sound - that which is heard - never existed.

It would not exist in an ontological and epidemiological mindset. I however, have no problem believing that there are things I cannot (yet) perceive Even better, I'm pretty sure there are many such things, because I see new things every day. I just don't know what those things are. That doesn't stop me from reasoning about the things I do perceive.

Personally, I want to think the way you do. It would allow for alternative dimensions, other universes, abstract thoughts, etc. Unfortunately I am confined to my world of subjectivity based upon my consciousness.

I am also confined to my world of subjectivity based upon my consciousness. But why do you believe there is not room for for alternative dimensions, other universes, abstract thoughts outside of your perception?

---

amkerman, first I would like to salute you on your honest style of discussion. Lately I've run into a series of people who can't give on the slightest point, no matter how absurd or counter-factual. Your willingness to really consider what we're saying is refreshing.

Seconded!