Argument against atheism

[The Grand Nudger]

Respect or admiration for the principles and history behind that bit of socrates is all fine and well. Of course, down the rabbit hole we go. How could he then know that he didn't know anything? Unproductive, no, not even unproductive; counterproductive nonsense. Perfectly understandable for a person living in a time where the only tool one had to try and discover anything with was their mind. We have better explanations for the limitations of our minds and thought processes, better explanations of the sorts of bias and fuzzy thinking that we engage in (and why we would do such a thing), and importantly much better tools than our own minds, and still people are quoting ancient philosophy as though it were gospel?

If all one uses to determine anything is their mind, if the thing that they are attempting to describe cannot be shown to exist anywhere outside of their mind, and if the concept brings with it thorny issues about itself and it's relationship to reality........then it's a safe bet to say that it's an issue with the mind, and the manner in which we form our thoughts, and not the world outside of the mind, or anything that exists independently of our thoughts. We understand that one can leverage a terribly flawed argument and reach a factually accurate conclusion nonetheless. That's a canary in the mine. I prefer something a little meatier than words and thoughts.

[Perhaps]

Respect or admiration for the principles and history behind that bit of socrates is all fine and well. Of course, down the rabbit hole we go. How could he then know that he didn't know anything? Unproductive, no, not even unproductive; counterproductive nonsense. Perfectly understandable for a person living in a time where the only tool one had to try and discover anything with was their mind. We have better explanations for the limitations of our minds and thought processes, better explanations of the sorts of bias and fuzzy thinking that we engage in (and why we would do such a thing), and importantly much better tools than our own minds, and still people are quoting ancient philosophy as though it were gospel?

You've missed the whole point of my argument two pages back. Everything is based on at least one fundamental assumption. That assumption cannot be proven (axiom). If it can't be proven then we can't know it's truth, we only see it as self-evident.

I do agree that by knowing we know nothing we would know at least one thing - it fails by contradiction. However, the point is much deeper than a simple contradiction of definition.

For example, right now we're using language - something that is a product of our conscious minds - to apply reason - something that is a product of our conscious minds - to an idea - something that is a product of our conscious minds.

If we can't prove (as truth) that we exist then we don't have consciousness - at least not in my original argument. If we don't have consciousness then nothing in the previous section matters, as it all relies on consciousness existing.

We have nothing usable to prove that we exist. We have nothing. We know nothing.

But this doesn't follow, as we are sitting here right now, thinking. Or are we? I can't answer these questions for you, which is why I assert that philosophy is the study of the self.

[The Grand Nudger]

Pick an axiom that you feel can be approached no other way, that must simply be accepted or rejected.

"If we can't prove (as truth) that we exist then we don't have consciousness - at least not in my original argument."

There's the trouble. Your argument is not the cosmos. You have an argument of definitions, not an argument over substance. Philosophy, pure philosophy with nothing attached, is useful for determining whether or not a concept can be rationalized, but isn't so useful in determining whether or not it is anything more than a concept.

For example. I can imagine a great many logically consistent things. Nonetheless, they needn't be actual things, they can still be products of my imagination entirely. Was it Void that said something like:

"Imagine [insert fantastic claims here]...no one gives a shit what you can imagine"...I have to find the source post on that one, I saw it in someone's sig.

[Perhaps]

Pick an axiom that you feel can be approached no other way, that must simply be accepted or rejected.

I would pick the axiom: I exist.

"If we can't prove (as truth) that we exist then we don't have consciousness - at least not in my original argument."

There's the trouble. Your argument is not the cosmos. You have an argument of definitions, not an argument over substance.

I agree I have an argument of definitions (which definitely has its limits), but what would an argument over substance look like?

[The Grand Nudger]

Which angle would you like to approach your existence from? Do you have any physical evidence? You're asking the question so that would count. Of course you could be a figment of my imagination, and we could make some interesting predictions based on that theory that could be falsified. Or perhaps we're both figments of someone else's imagination, again predictions could be made. Perhaps neither of us exist, or nothing exists, and then we could craft an entirely different model (except in the case of nothing existing, and no model would be needed, because here we are again asking the question so that can be dust-binned out of hand, something, if only this question..exists) which would again be rife with falsifiable predictions. This axiom isn't even much of an axiom, nor is it a statement best handled by philosophy because it is a claim to material reality, and we have better tools for that. In short, you don't have to accept or reject this axiom on it's face. You can look to falsify or confirm. Keep in mind that the axioms of the past are often no longer with us today in the present, so apparently "axioms" (and even their status as "axioms") are not unassailable. They have a history of failing their own definitions of themselves.

It would look a lot like observation, evidence, experimentation, and argumentation over those three things, rather than argumentation over argumentation.

[Perhaps]

Philosophy, pure philosophy with nothing attached, is useful for determining whether or not a concept can be rationalized, but isn't so useful in determining whether or not it is anything more than a concept.

I wish you wouldn't edit your posts after I respond to them. Makes me look a bit childish. However, I'll carry on from what you edited.

By this statement I'm assuming you mean that philosophy can't determine whether the concept is true or not? (or any of the properties of the concept for that matter).

For example. I can imagine a great many logically consistent things. Nonetheless, they needn't be actual things, they can still be products of my imagination entirely. Was it Void that said something like:

"Imagine [insert fantastic claims here]...no one gives a shit what you can imagine"...I have to find the source post on that one, I saw it in someone's sig.

I agree..? (although I'm not sure what this is implying)

---

Which angle would you like to approach your existence from? Do you have any physical evidence? You're asking the question so that would count. Of course you could be a figment of my imagination, and we could make some interesting predictions based on that theory that could be falsified. Or perhaps we're both figments of someone else's imagination, again predictions could be made. Perhaps neither of us exist, or nothing exists, and then we could craft an entirely different model (except in the case of nothing existing, and no model would be needed, because here we are again asking the question so that can be dust-binned out of hand, something, if only this question..exists) which would again be rife with falsifiable predictions. This axiom isn't even much of an axiom, nor is it a statement best handled by philosophy because it is a claim to material reality, and we have better tools for that. In short, you don't have to accept or reject this axiom on it's face. You can look to falsify or confirm. Keep in mind that the axioms of the past are often no longer with us today in the present, so apparently "axioms" (and even their status as "axioms") are not unassailable. They have a history of failing their own definitions of themselves.

It would look a lot like observation, evidence, experimentation, and argumentation over those three things, rather than argumentation over argumentation.

I don't think you are quite clear on what an axiom is or allows. All logic and reason follow from an axiom, which is why they can't be applied to the axiom. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axiom

Axioms do not change.

[The Grand Nudger]

Sorry, kids, typos, and fragmented thoughts. I find myself up and down from the keyboard, I try to get in it quick and at the start..lol.

It can determine whether or not a concept conforms to its system of rules, but to bring that concept out of the realm of philosophy and into the physical world you require something else.

The statement implies nothing, it's a cut and dry statement that what can be imagined does not have to be real simply because it can be imagined. It can be "real as a thought", "real as a concept" "true to itself" "true to the core principles of philosophy"...and still be nothing but a thought. Sometimes language can be ambiguous and create discord where there is none, and I see potential for that in the statement I just made, but I'm unwilling to offer any olive branch by modifying the statement as I criticize the very behaviour that I would be appeasing.

[Epimethean]

He is trying to stop the chafing, Perhaps. It's been on philosophical porno-overload for a while now.

[Perhaps]

Sorry, kids, typos, and fragmented thoughts. I find myself up and down from the keyboard, I try to get in it quick and at the start..lol.

No worries.

It can determine whether or not a concept conforms to its system of rules, but to bring that concept out of the realm of philosophy and into the physical world you require something else.

I think it also develops the said system of rules. Philosophy, as you said, is the basis of rationalization. It creates axioms from which all other things follow, including the system of rules which concepts conform to. I'll have to think on the second part of your statement though. I'm not sure if that's true, but perhaps you could add more to the statement to help me better understand its truth.

The statement implies nothing, it's a cut and dry statement that what can be imagined does not have to be real simply because it can be imagined. It can be "real as a thought", "real as a concept" "true to itself" "true to the core principles of philosophy"...and still be nothing but a thought. Sometimes language can be ambiguous and create discord where there is none, and I see potential for that in the statement I just made, but I'm unwilling to offer any olive branch by modifying the statement as I criticize the very behaviour that I would be appeasing.

I think this serves both of our perspectives equally. I believe that reality as we know it is 'real as a thought', 'real as a concept', and 'true to itself'. But to go further, and state that it actually exists requires something outside of ourselves, something that we do not possess.

[The Grand Nudger]

A devotee of Ra may have offered the axiom that Ra is god, and that it is self evident as the sun in the sky....Axioms do change, they're often modified by the proponents of hardcore axiomatic reasoning (and very often in the service of apologetics) to fit an argument that fails them, but could work much better if a better axiom were offered. Look at all of the variations of the god axiom and how they have developed over time. See what I did here, I invoked something which can be demonstrated by evidence as a criticism of a concept, rather than responding with a concept.

As I mentioned in my post, the idea of an axiom is something that must be accepted or not in and of itself, and the definition of an axiom would state that these things do not change, but they clearly do, and have. And again, many things that were once defined as "axiomatic" have lost that status as more information has become available to us. This is a great example of "no one gives a shit what can be imagined". "Axioms" have been imagined, now lets put them to the test, let's see if they are anything more than ideas, and lets see if they even live up to the definition of the idea.