Argument against atheism

[amkerman]

The quickest definition I can come up with for knowledge is awareness. It is intirely possible that you are unaware that things are true without it affecting truth. But if you have knowledge of something it necessarily means that thing is true, if it is true it must be real, if it is really it must exist. The only things that you can actually be aware of are true things. Whle you may hold the belief that you are aware of things that are not true, that is merely a belief, because things that are not true can not be real, and things that are not real do not exist, and one would not be described properly as being "aware" of something if that something does not exist.

I conflated morality and value here because I thought it made the most sense. If one has actualy knowledge of right or wrong or good or bad, then necessarily those "right" and "wrong" must actually exist in the universe. If they exist in reality they must be true. It is wholly possible that one simply believes they are aware of morality or value, but that in reality the various ideas concerning what is right or good do not exist. If they don't actually exist then they can not be true. They would simply be relegated back to the realm of personal opinion and belief.

I am of the opinion that there is an inherent order to the universe. Things are bound by universal laws which they can not escape. My opinion comes from collective scientific observation. That observation is made solely through the use of conscious perceptions. In order for me to believe in the inherent order of the universe I must naturally have confidence or belief in conscious perceptions. If I have confidence in conscious perceptions I am making the assertion that consciousness is true (although it is not susceptible to rigorous proof). If they are true they are real, if they are real they exist independent of any of my ideas about what the properties of conscious percetions are. If it exists independent of my ideas it must be a property of the universe
-(because the only things sciencce believes to exist independent of the ideas about those things are properties of the universe. I know I am having trouble articulating this point, so let me attept fto clarify although I will probably fail (it may be a weakness in the arguemt))--- we have ideas about what a rock is, we have ideas for how it is formed or made, we have ideas about the properties of the rock, its density, luster, etc. Those ideas involve how matter is formed from subatomic particles, physics, time, pressure, heat, etc. Apart from this ideas, however, the rock can not exist. --- Those ideas are all thought to be functions of the universe, the actual processes and forces that are inherent to the universe, but not things that are found within it. I hope that at least begins to offer some sort of explanation for my claim .

If I believe consciousness is a force or property of the universe rather than an emergent function of complex systems (which is what I believe, but I do not have prrof for, which is why I can not argue for the existence of God) then I believe that consciousness interacts with all things in the universe, which could be called a belief in "God", although It doesn't NEED to be called a belief in God.

definitely not omniscient.

[Darwinning]

The quickest definition I can come up with for knowledge is awareness. It is intirely possible that you are unaware that things are true without it affecting truth.

Awesome, so truth is not the same as knowledge.

definitely not omniscient.

Neither am I, so no shame in that.

[Epimethean]

So you cannot have knowledge of something which is not true?

[Darwinning]

We have ideas about what a rock is, we have ideas for how it is formed or made, we have ideas about the properties of the rock, its density, luster, etc. Those ideas involve how matter is formed from subatomic particles, physics, time, pressure, heat, etc. Apart from this ideas, however, the rock can not exist.

So you believe that reality and truth are constructed of ideas?

It is the school of idealism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idealism

Wikipedia defines Idealism as ...

In philosophy, idealism is the family of views which assert that reality, or reality as we can know it, is fundamentally mental, mentally constructed, or otherwise immaterial.

There are of course other schools of thought, so this is perhaps an important assumption to add to your argument. Other people (i.e. me) might no agree, even though we both could not produce any evidence for our claims.

If I believe consciousness is a force or property of the universe rather than an emergent function of complex systems (which is what I believe, but I do not have prrof for, which is why I can not argue for the existence of God)

So you agree that your argument depends on the belief that consciousness is not an emergent property.

If one does not accept that premise (personally, I do not) your argument does not hold water. Correct?

---

So you cannot have knowledge of something which is not true?

I think that's what he is contesting. But I do not believe it is central to his argument, so I did not pursue it.

[Perhaps]

My revisions, after many peopple have sucessfully acknowledged the many gaps in my original argument.

If one believes in objective reality then one believes in something that would correctly be termed "God".

(definitions I have are from dictionary.com)

Belief is defined as confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof

Objectivity is defined aas that which is not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or predjudice; it is based on facts; it is unbiased

Reality is defined as something that exists independently of the ideas which concern it.

A belief that things are objectively "real" then necessitates that one is confident in the truth or existence of reality which is not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof. That belief is not influenced by personal feelings or interpretations, but exists independently of the ideas which concern it.

All human observation is based on conscious thought.
- Concsiousness is defined as the awareness of one's own existence and being, sensation, thought, surroundings, etc
- There is no empirical evidence to suggest any of our conscious observations exist outside the scope of our own consciousness (Can not prove)
- All emprirical evidence is based on what humans have seen, heard, smelled, tasted, or touched
- These senses are constructs of a conscious mind

A belief that anything is objectively real, therefore, necessitates a belief that consciousness is real
- consciousness is the only tool humans have to observe the universe and draw conclusions and inference about that universe from

If one believes in things are objectively real consciousness must be believed to exist independently of the ideas which concern it.
- if consciousness does not exist independently of the ideas which concern it, then one can not logically have confidence in any of the observations humanity has made about the universe.
- One cannot be confident of the truth or existence of something which is not influenced by personal feelings which exists independently of the ideas which concern it if one cannot be confident in the truth or existence of their own existence, being, sensations, thoughts, surroundings, etc.

If one believes that consciousness is objectively real then by definition one believes consciousness exists independently of ones ideas which concern it.

In human experience and scientific achievement, things that are accepted as objectively true outside the realm of human consciousness and observation humanity has termed "forces of nature", "univeral laws", or "functions of the universe" (possibly baseless claim, still trying to refine this mess)
- laws of physics are believed to exist outside of consciousness
- motion
- thermodynamics
- etc

If consciousness is believed to be objectlvely real, it would correctly be termed a function of the universe

Functions of the universe are believed to bind all matter within the universe
- they pervade everything, nothing has been observed in the universe which is not bound by the universes own laws

Functions of the universe are normally described as singular and constant tinges, rather than multifarious or malleable
- atoms, molecules, humans, plants, animals, stars, planets, galaxies, time, and space are not thought to be able to escape the forces of the universe which act upon them; everything is believed to be inextricably bound by the laws of the universe, including th universe itself
- the forces and laws of the universe created the universe (not sure whether this statement needs validation)

God is defined as the sole supreme beinng, eternal and transcendent, who is the creator and ruler of all and is infinite in all attributes

... therefore: if one believes in objective reality, one must have confidence that consciousness not influenced by personal feelings or interpretations exists independently of the ideas which concern it even though consciousness is not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof. If one believes in consciousness then one must believe consciousness is a function of the universe acting on everything within the universe and the universe itself. That belief would correctly be called a belief in "God", a being which is eternal and transcendent, creator and ruler of all and infinite in all attributes.

Yes? No? Word Salad? (i found myself annoyingly repetitious while writing this)

There was some discussion of how I equate truth and reality and knowledge a few pages back; without actually going into any depth I will just state that they are the same thing. You can't have knowledge of something that doesn't exist, and things that don't exist can't be true. The only things which one may have knowledge of are things that actually exist. If things actually exist they are real. If things are real they are inherently true. The terms, in my limited opinion, are merely different iterations of what it means to exist.

---

So ultimately, It requires "faith in God" to believe in objective reality. Again, for anyone who may be new, I am not claiming that objective reality or God exist, just arguing that the belief in the former required what could be defined as a belief in the latter. I am making not claims as to what "God's" properties are or would be should "God" exist.

I would say this describes pantheism better than it describes theism. It is one thing to believe that God exists as a 'synonym' for everything - the unity which we all share based upon origin and existence - also that which is overreaching throughout the whole universe (laws of physics, nature, etc.).

"Functions of the universe are believed to bind all matter within the universe
- they pervade everything, nothing has been observed in the universe which is not bound by the universes own laws

Functions of the universe are normally described as singular and constant tinges, rather than multifarious or malleable
- atoms, molecules, humans, plants, animals, stars, planets, galaxies, time, and space are not thought to be able to escape the forces of the universe which act upon them; everything is believed to be inextricably bound by the laws of the universe, including th universe itself
- the forces and laws of the universe created the universe (not sure whether this statement needs validation)"

It is a completely other thing to deduce from this that God is a person or creator (deism) and even further yet - to become theist - that God cares about individuals and their fate.

"God is defined as the sole supreme beinng, eternal and transcendent, who is the creator and ruler of all and is infinite in all attributes"

---

In human experience and scientific achievement, things that are accepted as objectively true outside the realm of human consciousness and observation humanity has termed "forces of nature", "univeral laws", or "functions of the universe" (possibly baseless claim, still trying to refine this mess)
- laws of physics are believed to exist outside of consciousness
- motion
- thermodynamics
- etc

If consciousness is believed to be objectlvely real, it would correctly be termed a function of the universe

Why do you assert that anything that is objectively true must be a function of the universe?

Can consciousness not be an emergent property?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence

"emergence is the way complex systems and patterns arise out of a multiplicity of relatively simple interactions."

I'm not sure how his argument would falter even if it was an emergent property. It would only be emergent from the functions of the universe which can only be explained (or even observed) from consciousness.

"... therefore: if one believes in objective reality, one must have confidence that consciousness not influenced by personal feelings or interpretations exists independently of the ideas which concern it even though consciousness is not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof. If one believes in consciousness then one must believe consciousness is a function of the universe acting on everything within the universe and the universe itself. That belief would correctly be called a belief in "God", a being which is eternal and transcendent, creator and ruler of all and infinite in all attributes."

Even if consciousness is emergent, it still acts on everything within the universe and the universe itself. It is the only thing which, essentially, 'allows' the universe to exist. For what is existence if there is nothing to observe it being in existence?

[amkerman]

quite to the contrary Darwinning, I do not believe truth and reality are constructed from ideas, I believe they are objective things which exist apart from the ideas we have of them. When I stated, "Apart from this idea the rock can not exist" I made a topygraphical and syntactical error. I meant to state that apart from heat, pressure, etc that the rock could not exist. I bleieve that heat et. al. exist apart from our ideas of what they are.

If consciousness actually is an emergent function of complex systems, my argument still holds water I think. My argument is based on what people believe to be true, it is not based on what is true in reality.

If one only believes that consciousness is an emergent function of complex systems, i believe the argument still holds up. A belief that consciousness is an emergent function of complex systems denotes that one believes consciousness is not a force inherent to the universe, but simply a result of other forces which are inherent to the universe. As such one could not logically believe consciousness exists apart from those property's of the universe which are true, and it could not exist apart from those ideas which we associate with consciousness. Such a belief would be a belief that consciousness is not "real" beyond that it is a term for the interaction of various substances. One could not believe that consciousness itself was not real while at the same time believing anything humans have observed through the use of their senses (which is everything) is somehow real. That would be the equivalent of stating that, "the things I perceive with my senses are real, but my perceptions and senses are not". The first statement just doesn't logically follow from the second; if you can't be confident in your perceptions, you can not be confident in the things you perceive. To do so would require a giant leap of faith.

Yes epinethean I posit that you can not have knowledge of something which is not true. You can conject, opine, speculate, and hold beliefs about what is true without those speculations being actually true, but to have actual knowledge of something it necessarily MUST be true.

Perhaps: I call myself a theist because that is the label I am familar with. I have not claimed that God is a person, in fact the two terms seem contrary to me. The laws of the universe created the universe, God is those laws, hence God created the universe (my belief). Whether or not God "cares" about individuals or their fate is whole different issue. I believe that God does, but have not meditated on that subject so I will not make the claim that my belief is accurate, it would be intellectually dishonest for me to do so.

[Perhaps]

Something that might interest some people, as we're discussing consciousness..

http://www.ted.com/talks/antonio_damasio...sness.html

And also Dan Dennett's take on consciousness..

http://www.ted.com/talks/dan_dennett_on_...sness.html

[Epimethean]

Darwinning, as you have surmised, idealism is divided into many facets, but what amkerman is stating regarding the existence of things is indeed a form of idealism-possibly that of mentalism. The great consciousness being what he posits as god.

[The Grand Nudger]

I believe that God does, but have not meditated on that subject so I will not make the claim that my belief is accurate, it would be intellectually dishonest for me to do so.

(you probably wont be able to make much of a case if you did meditate on it, but I appreciate the candor.)

[Perhaps]

Darwinning, as you have surmised, idealism is divided into many facets, but what amkerman is stating regarding the existence of things is indeed a form of idealism-possibly that of mentalism. The great consciousness being what he posits as god.

Without the conscious mind, what exists? Existence is ontological which necessitates a mind or thought. You couldn't even presume that physicality or naturalism was true without consciousness.