Argument against atheism

[Perhaps]

... 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 agree. I'd be interested in your opinion on the rationality thread. http://atheistforums.org/thread-9924.html

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?

I'm worried that if I actually think about that for too long I'll convince myself never to speak again for the simple fact that everything is based on some fundamental assumption.

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?

According to my definition of existence, things are only real if they are able to be perceived using consciousness. I can't even fathom alternative dimensions, more than the words and their definitions anyway, let alone use any of my senses to realize their existence. If things did exist, simply by being, rather than by consciousness, that would allow alternative dimensions, multiple universes, etc. as I said earlier.

I can perceive physicalism in the sense that I am able to imagine it being true, and if that in turn means that my conscience is perceiving it then I suppose I do believe it exists. I'll have to sit down for a bit to think it through, as is often the case. I love paradoxes and things of that sort.

[Darwinning]

Darwinning: "you cant be confident in your reasoning, because the brain from which your consciousness arises is fallible"- yes, that's true if you believe consciousness is an emergent function of complex systems. I believe that consciousness, and everything I perceive, is real beyond my own mind, however. I believe reality is objective. While I can't know that my reasoning is correct (and I admittedly don't, although I believe it is, if only some of the time) I can be confident that it might be correct, because I believe that some things are inherently true, and others inherently false.

Yes, I think this is what our difference in opinion comes down to.

I find your assertions fascinating, but cannot ascribe to them. My belief is that consciousness arises from the machinery of the brain and that machinery is falible. I wonder if you've ever been really logically wrong, intoxicated, or so ill you were confused, or knocked out. How do you explain the changes in your perceptions, if not from events in some unknowable physical reality?

[amkerman]

Ughh. I am writing this argument for a paper for one of my finals in argumentation. It's due tomorrow. I have 2 other argument analysis's to get through... This is the only interesting one. SMH. I'll check back later. If anything I am glad that some of you have considered the argument or at least found it interesting, or even if you didn't that you found the banter over the last few days amuzing.

At times I may have come off as rude or insulting, I apologize. It was not my intention to offend anyone or force my beliefs on anyone; I admit that in the heat of conversation I may have committed those crimes and spoke out of anger or pride. Surely I am not immune to my own humanity, though I attempt to remain ever vigalent angainst those things which I honestly believe to be bad or wrong.

Everyone have a happy holidays (no religious connotation intended)...

[Perhaps]

It wouldn't negate existence, just any perception of it, cmon people.....What you're basically saying here is that if human beings weren't around to percieve anything, nothing would be perceived by human beings (just as one example), well no shit! Rocks don't depend upon our consciousness for existence, we depend upon our consciousness to perceive their existence.

Not just humans, but any conscious being. If none existed then would that negate existence, that is the question. Remember, your perception that we depend upon our consciousness to perceive what already exists is only true if external items exist. But the only way to say that they exist is to have something with a conscious determine they exist.

Does anyone see what I'm trying to say?

[edit:] I just realized how dumb this would sound to someone who just clicks on the last page of the thread.

[Norfolk And Chance]

You do not prove that things exist, you cannot.

You know you need to take an hour or two break from philosophising when you begin to make statements like that.

You can prove that things exist. I can prove I exist for example.

[Darwinning]

I really gotto go sleep now, as it is already far beyond bed time. Fascinating discussion. I hope we can continue later.

Sorry Amkerman and Perhaps, but my understanding of your beliefs is that you will now have to cease to exist for a few hours while I go lay unconscious in my bed. Hope that doesn't stop you from posting more material. ;-p

[Norfolk And Chance]

Not just humans, but any conscious being. If none existed then would that negate existence, that is the question. Remember, your perception that we depend upon our consciousness to perceive what already exists is only true if external items exist. But the only way to say that they exist is to have something with a conscious determine they exist.

Does anyone see what I'm trying to say?

Yes, however I'm not losing any sleep over it, because it's not really a big deal.

If something exists, it exists whether you perceive it or not.

[Perhaps]

I agree, great discussion, but it is wearing my mind out. I'll try to remain existing while you sleep Darwinning

In conclusion:
Am I able to make the claim that 'God exists. It just exits in a way that isn't conceivable or able to be sensed by our conscious beings?' if I am using a physicalism approach?

[MilesTailsPrower]

There is absolutely no empirical evidence that murder is "bad".

Discernment and self control is what separates us from animals. Therefor the outlook on murder is not tolerated in societies.

[Minimalist]

Discernment and self control is what separates us from animals. Therefor the outlook on murder is not tolerated in societies.

Animals kill when they are hungry.


Humans invent lots of reasons when killing is not murder. I'm not so sure we have a lot to brag about on this score.