Argument against atheism

[The Grand Nudger]

There is no evidence for the existence of deities, so how does one debate something that is not based in reality?

Mostly by reminding the faithful of exactly that.

[amkerman]

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.

[Epimethean]

You went off the track early today, showing that you have yet to accept your wrong-thinking here:

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

Let us remove the "correctly" and let us substitute "could" for "would;" then, we may be getting somewhere.

[amkerman]

conceded.

[Shell B]

Okay, so, to put it plainly, if you think the universe is there if we are not looking at it, then you believe in god?

I have only ever heard very strange quantum physics theories stating that you have to look at something for it to be there, so you are basically saying everyone believes in god, if I was correct above.

[Epimethean]

It is the school of idealism.

[amkerman]

I am not saying everyone believes or even should believe that the universe still exists if nothing is observing it, just that if you believe it does, it must stem from a belief in something that could be described as "God". The term "God" is just a label, you could describe it in a variety of ways, but the essence of the belief would be the same.

---

think shrodingers cat.

---

BECAUSE I assume that most people believe that the universe exists even after we die even if one defines themselves as atheist, I have come to the opinion that even most atheists share a belief in "God", although they certaintly not describe or label that belief "God".

Thoe whole point is that the belief exists independently of any of the ideas or connotations which are associated with it. Some may have the idea that It's some invisible hand, or a flying spaghetti monster, or a bearded man sitting on a cloud, or simply an objective reality has no bearing on what "God" actually is, should this "God" exist.

[Darwinning]

First off, let me say that I am genuinely impressed with the progress you seem to be making. Not a perfect argument, but you are moving forward in strides. Good job!

Now we have something somewhat readable that looks somewhat like an argument, we can discuss the various points you are putting forward. It's a long argument, so you'll have to forgive me for not dealing with all of it in one go.

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

[Shell B]

I am not saying everyone believes or even should believe that the universe still exists if nothing is observing it, just that if you believe it does, it must stem from a belief in something that could be described as "God".

Then, how would you explain people who believe that the universe is there no matter who is looking who do not believe in god? Why on Earth would god have to come into play on this? I can believe that the universe is made up of tiny particles that spread out at the time of the Big Bang (oversimplification) and still be rather certain it is there regardless of anyone knowing it is there. In other words, the tree makes a noise when it falls no matter what.

think shrodingers cat.

Schrodinger's cat really has nothing to do with it. In the Schrodinger's cat experiment, we know the cat exists, we know that it could be either alive or dead. It has nothing to do with assuming a higher power if you think of the cat as alive.

BECAUSE I assume that most people believe that the universe exists even after we die even if one defines themselves as atheist, I have come to the opinion that even most atheists share a belief in "God", although they certaintly not describe or label that belief "God".

Bah. You are talking about a creator, an all-powerful deity, correct? I define myself as an atheist, therefore, I am an atheist. You do not have the power to define me based on shoddy thought processes. You have given absolutely no reason why one would have to think A. if they think B. You have just found a few different ways to state your assertion. Try step-by-stepping it.

[Darwinning]

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.

Could there be things that are true, but of which you have no knowledge?

If so, how can you not know them if knowledge and truth are the same thing (which you are contesting here)?

If not, do you consider yourself to be omniscient?

(Earlier, you were also mixing in some morality and judgement here and there. But that seems to have disappeared from your argument completely, so I'll leave those be.)