Argument against atheism

[amkerman]

Norfolk: I doubt you can prove you exist. I have never seen anyone prove anything exists. Just saying.

Perhaps: I see what you are saying, it's similar to what I am saying. A lot of people seem to believe it's garbage.

If reality can only be observed through a mechanism we know as consciousness, then it seems to me that consciousness must be inherent to the universe in order for reality to be accurately observed or perceived.

Now, reality might actually exist regardless of consciousness, but that reality would not be based upon our conscious perceptions. there is no likelihood that realty would look even remotely close to the reality we perceive. Think the Matrix, but even the physical properties and fundamental forces of the universe are up for grabs if that is the case. It just seems illogical to believe this to be true, because there is no evidence to support it, because again, all observation is based on consciousness perceptions.

---

Perhaps: If you are able to make the claim the God exists, then consciously you must have somehow been able to perceive God, unless there is someway to perceive things outside of our own consciousnesses. I would suggest that if you perceive God it is most like through "feeling" or "senseing" or awareness.

How do you percieve love? you can not touch or smell or taste or see love or hear it, yet people know it when they feel it. It is not readily definable. It is not suceptable to rigorous proof. But the feeling's are real... unless of course they're not.

[Norfolk And Chance]

Norfolk: I doubt you can prove you exist. I have never seen anyone prove anything exists. Just saying.

Well, stop saying.

I can prove absolutely that I exist through documentation, through posting on here, and if you like, you can meet me, poke my belly and satisfy yourself that I exist.

I can prove to a court of law that I exist, and a court of law > amkerman.

Let's just stop saying silly shit like you can't prove stuff exists, because you fucking can.

I'm so sick of philosobabble, it has fuck all value. Fuck all.

[The Grand Nudger]

I'm not sure why it seems so to you. Consciousness need only be "inherent" to the thing that is attempting to leverage perception (ourselves in most examples). Projecting some facet of ourselves (consciousness) onto the cosmos (especially in service of a question that asks about our relationship to the cosmos..which is what the god question is, essentially) is a pretty common human mistake. It may be that we do not have an accurate picture or perception of reality. We have good reasons to believe that we do. There are certain types of bias that our point of view (our inability to perceive anything from outside of our own consciousness) can lead to, we try to avoid that. Some are easy, we look for independent verification. That way we can at least be sure that it isn't just one of us seeing something that isn't there. We leverage tools and protocols designed to mitigate the bias that we understand to be inherent in ourselves. Last, but certainly not least, we leave everything open to review and insist that all things be scrutinized, professionally. It's worked for us so far.

If you're writing this argument for a grade might I suggest that you avoid the "most correctly termed as" line? Who would ask students to come up with an argument for the existence of a god for a grade though? That's about the cruelest thing I can imagine If you're going to attempt some TAG variant take those two versions I posted and find a way to reword them in your own style without straying too far from the script. They're not actually good arguments, but if this is the sort of argument you have to write for a paper, something very similar to either of those two is probably your best bet. The trouble is how sour things can go when you choose the wrong words, so be careful when rewording it (if you choose to do so).

[Minimalist]

I'm so sick of philosobabble, it has fuck all value. Fuck all.

Yep. Mental masturbation. And this guy seems like a jerk-off artist of the highest order!

[Epimethean]

I think he is trying to find the middle ground. He is not a jerk, and I respect his attempts to find ways to communicate, even if I think the end point of his argument would be self-mooted.

[houseofcantor]

Norfolk: I doubt you can prove you exist. I have never seen anyone prove anything exists. Just saying.

Perhaps: I see what you are saying, it's similar to what I am saying. A lot of people seem to believe it's garbage.

If reality can only be observed through a mechanism we know as consciousness, then it seems to me that consciousness must be inherent to the universe in order for reality to be accurately observed or perceived.

Now, reality might actually exist regardless of consciousness, but that reality would not be based upon our conscious perceptions. there is no likelihood that realty would look even remotely close to the reality we perceive. Think the Matrix, but even the physical properties and fundamental forces of the universe are up for grabs if that is the case. It just seems illogical to believe this to be true, because there is no evidence to support it, because again, all observation is based on consciousness perceptions.

---

Perhaps: If you are able to make the claim the God exists, then consciously you must have somehow been able to perceive God, unless there is someway to perceive things outside of our own consciousnesses. I would suggest that if you perceive God it is most like through "feeling" or "senseing" or awareness.

How do you percieve love? you can not touch or smell or taste or see love or hear it, yet people know it when they feel it. It is not readily definable. It is not suceptable to rigorous proof. But the feeling's are real... unless of course they're not.

What they call philosobabble I see as naive philosophy. Shall we compare notes? Observe:



Without solicitation, i have received independent confirmation from numerous observers that "my love of Gwyneth is evident in the ellenjanuary portraiture." (ellenjanuary name of I) With philosophy I have moved past cognito into amo ergo sum. The entirety of my identity carried by such testimony - i love - what is left to prove is precisely zero.

Who am I? ellenjanuary
What am I? 4. Emergent simulation of Mind in brain. Software. Static interference pattern. These words. The evolution of geometry over entropy into a local node of information processing identified as self to maximize the minima of being.

There is no argument against atheism; there is only personal preference and moral judgment.

---

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.

Just 'cause you're an atheist, there's no reason to deny our divine entitlement: Lucifer. Everything about humanity and its attendant civilization is derivative of the fact that we lie. We sit here at the tipping point, at the convergence of the emergence, witnessing the results coalesce from a 13.7 billion year old experiment.

When I used to think of having a purpose, or there being a god, or justice, or karma; life just sucked. Now that I am a simulation - not even real - 4 lines of computer code, life is me living it.

And is somebody trying to state the incompatibility of morality and atheism? In rerunning the tapes of memory, when I thought I was somebody, reality verified the state of being nobody. Now that I am even less - 4 - reality verifies the moral will of this... number.

[downbeatplumb]

Gwenyth Paltrow! why would you like that skinny woman? Give me a woman with curves.

[KichigaiNeko]

Gwenyth Paltrow! why would you like that skinny woman? Give me a woman with curves.

Halle Berry???

[downbeatplumb]

Gwenyth Paltrow! why would you like that skinny woman? Give me a woman with curves.

Halle Berry???

Still too skinny.

[KichigaiNeko]

Gwenyth Paltrow! why would you like that skinny woman? Give me a woman with curves.

Halle Berry???

Still too skinny.

Well that counts me out mate...whom did you have in mind??