Argument against atheism

[houseofcantor]

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

So I present potential evidence of objective love; and you respond with a prayer.

[KichigaiNeko]

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

So I present potential evidence of objective love; and you respond with a prayer.

What else is there but a man's prayer for a woman with curves HouseofC?

[Zen Badger]

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??

I still think you're hot bebe

[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??

---

I still think you're hot bebe

YOU are biased in your opinion...but thanks.

Not everyone likes a mix of skinny curves

[Norfolk And Chance]

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

What "they" call philosobabble? Um, it is a word that I just recently made up myself, I didn't realise it had caught on...

Anyway, I should get to define it, seeing as though I own the word...

"Philosobabble - A type of constrained pseudo philosophical type thinking, that is more interested in trying to be what the thinker percieves to be philosophically correct, rather than finding truths. This often leads the philosobabbler down an irreversible path towards making absurd statements that they cannot actually recognise as absurd - such as "we don't know the tooth fairy does not exist", or "you can't prove anything exists". It is said (by me ) that the point when a philosophical argument turns to philosobabble, is the point where the conversation becomes effectively meaningless."

---

Bloody hell, I just googled "philosobabble" and it seems that others thought the word up before me! I'm gutted.

I therefore change my word to "philosobollocks".

[amkerman]

will someone translate HouseofCantor's proof of objective love into something that I can understand? I am attempting to do it myself below, but if I have translated something incorrectly please let me know.

"without solicitation i have received independent confirmation from numerous observers that 'my love of gwenyth is evident in the ellenjanuary portraiture'. (ellenjanuary name of I)."

-Even without asking for confirmation that my love of Gwenyth Paltrow is evidenced by my fascination and possible obsession with the portriate of her on the january cover of "Ellen" magazine, other people have told me that my love of Paltrow is in fact evidenced by my obsession with the portrait.

- You fail to define love first of all, so any question to whether the argument is true is meaningless.
- Any confirmation you believe you have received from independent sources is in fact just your own perception of what "other sources" have said, which you have interpreted through the lens of your own consciousness. It is not independent confirmation then but your self perception of "independent sources" which may or may not even actually exist outside your mind. You betray yourself with this contention. If "independent observers" are able to verify your beliefs about the world then my belief in God could be verified simply by other people saying my belief was true.


"With philosophy I have moved past cognate to amo ergo sum."

With philosophy I have moved past "I think" to "I love" therefor I am.

- No. again you assume that "love" is objectively real without proof. That you think that you love, therefor objectively you love, therefore you exist. You still provide no evidence that you objectively love, you fail to even define what this "love" is outside of your own conscious perception that love. Philosophy has nothing to do with it. You claim that your perceptions of "independent observers" somehow validates your own perceptions without proving that "independent observers" exist outside of your own perceptions of them. Whether people say God exists has no bearing on the truth of the claim. In order for thing's to be real they must exist apart from our ideas of what things are, which we cannot prove, because all things are based on observations of a conscious mind. In order to believe that your conscious perceptions are true, you must believe that consiousness exists apart from your ideas about what consciousness is, which you claim later in your argument you do not.

"The entirety of my identity carried by such testimony- i love - what is left to prove is precisely zero"
My identity is carried by my conscious perceptions of what others have said - that I love - there is nothing left to prove.

- You still fail to prove that your conscious perceptions are accurate, and you still fail to prove what love is outside of your conscious perception. "That nothing is left to prove" is a claim you have made which doesn't logically follow from your argument. You have proven nothing, yeet there is nothing to prove.

"Who am I? ellenjanuary."
I am the portriat

- ha

"Who 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."
I am an emergent function of my brain.

- This is the only rational satement you make. It is entirely possible that "you" are merely an emergent function of your brain. Yet if this is the case, there is nothing to measure the truth of your words against because the "self" or more properly "consciousness" does not exist apart from your idea that it is an emergent function of complex systems. You cannot be confident that any of your previous statements are true then because you cannot be confident that consciousness exists apart from your "self". If consciousness does not exist apart from the idea of "self" then consciousness does not exist as inherent in the universe. If consciousness does not exist inherent to the universe, there is no basis to believe that the things you perceive using your consciousness exist at all outside of your own consciousness. Therefore you fail to prove love, that you think, that ellenjanuary exists, or that you typed any words. in this view the only thing you can be confident in is that you have subjectively experience these things, not that they are objectively real.

[Darwinning]

In this view the only thing you can be confident in is that you have subjectively experience these things, not that they are objectively real.

True. Time to make some damn assumptions on blind faith and get on with living life. Nothing wrong with living in a world that is probable, but not provable.

[Epimethean]

That is the best point and one which flies in the face of the need for too much philosobabble. I think philosophy has value, but not when it gets in the way of experiencing life.

[Darwinning]

That is the best point and one which flies in the face of the need for too much philosobabble. I think philosophy has value, but not when it gets in the way of experiencing life.

In the end all the babble comes down to the fact that we must all make assumptions based on blind faith. There is no choice in the matter. There can be no proof without a principle; the principle cannot be proven.

But for the love of God, can we all just keep your assumptions just a little modest, please? Thanks.

[amkerman]

We cannot see the forest for the trees because we cannot "see" the forst and we can not "see" the trees. Sight is the process of light entering a humans cornea and hitting the receptors on the retina which causes an electrical charge. Those receptors then fire and send a signal down the optic nerve to the occiptal lobe, where the brain processes the electrical signals. consciousness then interprets what the brain has processed into a mental image and we perceive the forest and the trees through our own consciousness. There is no reason to believe the tree or forest exist apart from consciiousness. It is illogical. to believe in the forest or the trees unless one also believes that consiousness is inherently real. If consciousness is inherently real it must exist apart from our ideas an notions of what consciousness is (definition of "real"). For that to be true it must be a property of the universe and not an emergent function of the brain (breif glossing of why- everything in the universe is created by universal forces. those things we interpret in the physical world and form ideas about through our conscious mind. The only things we exist apart from our observations of them, are forces of the univere such as magnatysm, gravity, etc.). A belief that consciousness exists as a promary force in the universe could correctly be called a belief in God (without going back over why that is, and it doesn't NEED to be called God, it can be called any infinnite number of things. (one could define it scientifically, spritually, philisohpically, etc, the actual belief remains the same, because it exists independently of our ideas for it).