Argument against atheism

[Epimethean]

I hope you understand the fault of that line of thinking lies in the word "presume."

[Perhaps]

I hope you understand the fault of that line of thinking lies in the word "presume."

So you would argue that it objectively exists without the need to be brought into existence via consciousness? My point is that you couldn't even possess that thought without consciousness. It's difficult to think about, and I can understand why people would assert that it still exists even if no one is there to think it does. But that goes against the very definition of existence.

[Epimethean]

Only if you posit that consciousness is necessary for the actual fact of existence, which it isn't save for use of such as a term in dialogue.

[Perhaps]

How do you prove that something exists? I'm very surprised that you would make the statement that things can factually exist without the need to be consciously recognized as being such. That position opens up the door to all kinds of statements, such as "just because there isn't any evidence for it, doesn't mean it doesn't exist." Which I personally agree with, but most on here do not.

[Darwinning]

"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.

As I interpret it, the argument requires consciousness to be a primary function of the universe, all-pervasive and everywhere. The fact that a property can emerge from a set of rules does not imply that is will always emerge, or that the rules somehow contain that property.

"Snowflakes forming complex symmetrical patterns is an example of emergence in a physical system."

Would you say that all water is snow? Would you consider snow to be a primary property of water? (I'm not even sure snow exists; it's just a label I use for that white stuff that's cold.)

"... 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?

Even if consciousness is emergent, it still acts on everything within the universe and the universe itself.

Not in my view. All that is required is a physical reality from which consciousness could arise. I could be that consciousness and look around me and say "wow, that all looks really complicated".

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?

Does a bear shit in the woods?

This seems like a self-centered "the universe only exists because I see it" argument to me. Also, essentially idealism. Which is fine, if that is what you believe.

---

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.

Without ears, you could not listen. That would not mean there is no sound.

---

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.

But ...

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

I believe consciousness is real, but because it may be emergent it does not necessarily "bind all matter within the universe" or "pervade everything". Just as snowflakes do not bind all water.

[amkerman]

that's just it epimethean: To believe that things are real, but not believe that consciousness is real is illogical. Everything that is observed is observed through the medium of consciousness. So say that the things we perceive with our conscious minds are true but our conscious minds themselves are not is pardoxical.

One can not logically believe that "The sun rises in the East" without believing that perceptions of the sun, that things rise, or that the direction East is (are?) real. If you believe that your perceptions are not real you can not believe that what you observe using your perceptive ability are.

Whether of not the sun actually rises in the East is besides the point. However, in order for the sun to rise in the East there must be a sun, things must be able to rise, and there must be an "East". If the sun does rise in the east in realty, it is necessary that a consiousness is an primary funtion of the universe, as there is no way to perceive a sun rising in the east absent consiousness. It is entirely possible that consiousness is not real apart from how we "feel" things work, but that necessitates a belief that nothing in the universe actually works at all apart from how we subjectively believe theym to. A belief in such is a rejection that anything actually exists outside our own perceptions, it is a rejection of a belief in objective reality.

That rejection is illogical, although rational. That things actually exist is supported by all of scientific observation and human thought. That things exist is scientific fact. The reason that we can believe things exist is because we are conscious. There is no evidence that things don't exist. As such I form the belief that consciousness must be something that exists in the universe independent of my thoughts or ideas about what consciousness is, much like the speed of light.

[Epimethean]

I did not say that consciousness is not real, amkerman. Try if you can to stop twisting the statements to suit your perspective.

There's a bit of a joke in there, too.

[Perhaps]

We can agree to disagree on the former of what you replied. But I'm honestly completely fascinated with this conversation.

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?

Does a bear shit in the woods?

This seems like a self-centered "the universe only exists because I see it" argument to me. Also, essentially idealism. Which is fine, if that is what you believe.

I guess I subscribe to ontology and epistemology as my mind set. As a philosopher, it is sometimes hard for me to get out of this mindset, but i'm always open to hear others.

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?

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

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.

Without ears, you could not listen. That would not mean there is no sound.

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.

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.

[Darwinning]

if you can't be confident in your perceptions, you can not be confident in the things you perceive.

You can't even be confident in your reasoning, because the brain from which you consciousness arises is falible. There is no absolute truth to be learned, no curtain to be drawn, no Eureka moment.

I believe absolute truth probably exists (I would expect more randomness in the world otherwise), I also believe I can never know what it is.

But we can make predictions and see if they come true.

Perhaps it is time I explained what I do for a living. :-)

[Epimethean]

"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."


You can free yourself from that by adopting a bigger set of toys, one of which is admitting that things are even when we are not. Consciousness does not define existence.

A pretty good essay on this subject:

http://www.bigissueground.com/philosophy...orld.shtml