Argument against atheism

[Epimethean]

Wait no I get it now:

1. I think
2. Therefore the universe
3. ergo God

Suck it atheists.

QED mutherfuckers!

Cogito Ergo Deus?

More like:

Nescio ergo deus

[houseofcantor]

- This is the only rational satement you make.

HoC 1, You, 0.

Reading comprehension is like mastercard. Don't leave home without it. I didn't say shit, I offered visual evidence.

---

Wait no I get it now:

1. I think
2. Therefore the universe
3. ergo God

Suck it atheists.

QED mutherfuckers!

Cogito Ergo Deus?

Exodus 3:14. Then the universe. Assholes can't even read their own script.

[Epimethean]

The trinity is working on a new teleprompter which is said to be positively angelic.

[Whateverist]

My god! This is still going on? Has the story changed any?

Let me see if I can remember .. consciousness is a property of the universe so if you're conscious of anything, you just gotta thank god .. or something like that. Is left-handedness also a property of the universe? I wonder which god we've got to recognize on account of the lefties. Does anyone really think consciousness happens someplace other than neurons? Never mind.

My advice is before you try to dress an idea in as many freely associated words as you can think of with lots of if-thens, just see if you can say the ideas simply. If you can't say it simply, it probably doesn't make any sense. Of course if you're working hard to maintain an untenable position, knock yourself out.

[Epimethean]

No, no, no, you've got it all wrong. Consciousness is a property of the universe, so if you're aware that you are conscious, you've been begodded, and if you aren't aware that you are conscious, you are god; however, if you're aware that you are not conscious, head toward the light.

[Perhaps]

His argument supposed that consciousness was a property of the universe. We've established that it is an emergent property. This led to a discussion of metaphysical solipsism vs. objectivism. It was a wonderful discussion until individuals started to make rash assumptions hidden as 'facts' and 'truths'. This led to the quick demeaning of the discussion and eventually subjective statements made on the premise that objectivism is true.

For those who believe that proving yourself is possible, or proving anything is possible, I would recommend reading some ontology. If you don't think that ontology has value then I would recommend reading some axiology. If you think philosophy has no value then I would recommend ignorance, for that seems to suit most who blindly accept science as absolute truth.

A philosophical discussion is merely that - a discussion. There is no argument, for the discussion is what is creating the premises, and without premises an argument isn't an argument. If there is no argument then there is no 'right' or 'wrong'. I'm sorry if this frustrates some who believe that there are such things objectively.

Subjectivity is, perhaps, the point of this thread - or at least what has become of this thread. In a existence where two or more things are conscious there is subjectivity. This subjectivity does not negate the possibility of objectivity outside of the conscious beings. This subjectivity does however negate the possibility that all things are objective - which is the premise of objectivism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivity_(philosophy)).

The recognition that there is a possibility of objectivity outside of the conscious being negates the premise of metaphysical solipsism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solipsism). Thus we are left in a position somewhere between these two. One that recognizes the conscious' effect on our perception of reality while also recognizes the possibility of objective existence outside of our own conscious self.

'Philosobollocks' is only meaningless if you determine it to be so. Like I said, ignorance is a tolerable position to hold, but not one that gives you the right to determine absolute truths or facts.

[Minimalist]

For those who believe that proving yourself is possible,

Try this....raise a hammer high over your head and bring it down as hard as you can on your other hand.

Let me know if it hurts or not.

[Epimethean]

LOL, and if you get to Nirvana, nevermind.

[Perhaps]

For those who believe that proving yourself is possible,

Try this....raise a hammer high over your head and bring it down as hard as you can on your other hand.

Let me know if it hurts or not.

So consciousness defines existence? My ability to perceive pain proves that i exist? Then what of non conscious bodies? Do we determine they exist based on our conscious decision? What then of subjectivity? Surely existence becomes subjective if we allow it to be defined by consciousness.

You see how slippery this slope is? We try not to fall off, so we assure ourselves that we exist - we make it an axiom - but the 'fact' of the matter is that we cannot definitively prove we exist.

(Yes, I do suppose I exist as I accept the assumed axiom, but not because I can prove it to be true.)

[Edit:]On a side note: sometimes I'm amazed at the speech of some atheists who assert their opinions based on science as those which trump opinions based on faith. One is a stance built upon ultimately subjective evidence which itself has been built upon axioms - assumptions made that can never be proven but allow for all logic and reasoning. The other is a stance built upon ultimately subjective evidence - if you can call personal experience and posteriori justification evidence - which itself has been built upon assumptions made that can never be proven but allow for all illogical thought. We, as a whole, over simplify one of the most complex issues in all of conscious being. In the end, the only thing of value is epistemology which decisively humbles the most arrogant among us.

[Whateverist]

On a side note: sometimes I'm amazed at the speech of some atheists who assert their opinions based on science as those which trump opinions based on faith. One is a stance built upon ultimately subjective evidence which itself has been built upon axioms - assumptions made that can never be proven but allow for all logic and reasoning. The other is a stance built upon ultimately subjective evidence - if you can call personal experience and posteriori justification evidence - which itself has been built upon assumptions made that can never be proven but allow for all illogical thought. We, as a whole, over simplify one of the most complex issues in all of conscious being. In the end, the only thing of value is epistemology which decisively humbles the most arrogant among us.

I too have noticed that some atheists treat the existence of god as something science can help us decide. I agree that if god has any meaning at all it has to be subjective and ontological. It isn't 'out there'
where science can get at it.

Let's see if we can square away a few of the big pieces.

Would you agree that consciousness is not something we perceive. Rather, it is the way the objective world reacts with our fields of consciousness which gives rise to perception. Consciousness arises as awareness of the objective world. There is no separate substrate of the universe made up of consciousness which gives rise to the illusion of an objective world. Rather, it is organisms interacting with the physical world which gives rise to consciousness. Many creatures have this to some degree. But as far as we know, we are the only ones who use the abstract medium of language to describe and ponder the world and ourselves.

The notion of god is not just a ponzi scheme invented by the shrewd to fleece the masses, though some organized religions seem to work that way. Religious experience in the form of gods seems to have arisen everywhere in similar motifs. These experiences may have served a number of purposes but one must be careful not to confuse causation with correlation. Appealing to gods to ensure a harvest or a hunt may have allayed anxiety but it makes no more sense to say that is why men invented gods than it does to say giraffes grew their necks longer in order to reach the higher leaves. In both cases, evolution operates to promote traits with survival value.

Now I personally don't think the god delusion operates purely in terms of mass hypnosis. I don't really think our species would have gone on believing in gods to the degree we have if there wasn't something in our nature that supports the notion. So god's ontology is linked to our own, and dependent on us rather than the other way around.

My own pet theory for what it is in our subjective lives which supports the god hypothesis is the fact that the division of the brain into two hemispheres has actually resulted in two seats of consciousness in us all. I know it sounds weird. More often we think of ourselves as a unity in which the conscious mind is seen as a kind of scoop of the total largely unconscious mind. But the structuring of the brain into two hemispheres serves the purpose of allowing us to attend to focused tasks with our left brain while a separate part of our mind carries on autonomously, scanning the environment for threats and opportunities. I also consider this account as highly provisional but before you dismiss it, watch this video on Ian McGilchrist: