Argument against atheism

[Perhaps]

I agree, which is why I'll stop posting and allow Amkerman to continue with his argument. Great discussion to all who were apart. Very thought provoking.

[Blam!]

If I want to know how consciousness exists then I can refer to science - which will tell me it is a large number of neurons firing to create a conscious being from a number of non-conscious beings. This does not, and cannot, answer the question of why consciousness exists. It is a subjective answer.

Wait. Isn't Scientific findings are mixture of Objective and Subjective answers?

[houseofcantor]

LOL. We have in the past complained about rabid theists showing up and shitting about; now, we have been invaded by the "philosopher kings." I am coming to want to call the twain the "phrontisterion."

By the by, philosophy does not answer "why" the world works in any ultimate way.

Are you kidding me? I'm a naive philosopher fifty pages into my book of Kant and I gotta be the expert around here? No wonder why atheism's such a mess.

You do realize theology is philosophy, that science is derivative of natural philosophy, yeah? Cool.

So by calling it axiomatic, Perhaps and amkerman are calling it a priori; prior to experience - this argument against atheism - and why are they still going? Because they're right, and you and the rabid atheists ain't seeing it.

With me, they're wrong; simply because it is a moral wrong. The atheist position is to argue from a scientific perspective what is a metaphysical debate, attempting to determine truth based on evidence. It's like calling a strike out in football.

I don't do formal philosophy; besides, who wants to hear it? Let's just cut to the chase. A priori "god" is not congruent to a posteriori moral experience. Baby!

OK, team, atheist? That's what you look for; once they cross over into the corporeal realm of knowledge based on experience, let 'em have it.

[The Grand Nudger]

This is the perfect time for me to make my point, ever more clear.

There are two types of assumptions made in life. Those of axioms - made without our choice, they simply are self-evidently true, and form all other 'truths'. The other is those of knowledge assumptions - like the one I made about the consciousness of mollusks.

I am arguing the former, and you are arguing the later. Science, your words, our discussion, these thoughts, would not make sense without the assumed axiom that reason is the source of truth. None of them would exist if the axiom: I exist was not true. Once these are established, all thoughts are sensible if they apply reason, our discussion is sensible if it applies reason, your words are sensible if they apply reason, and science is sensible if it applies reason.

What you have a problem with, as do I, is when people make assumptions about the way the world works (which is the field of science) and assert them as truths. If I want to know how the world works I will refer to science, but if I want to know why the world works I will refer to philosophy. Science is the most useful tool we have at our dispense, but it is limited by our understanding of self.

I hope that made my point a little more clear. I think we agree, we're just referring to two different concepts and posing them against each other, when we really just need to realize that they are two different concepts.

An axiom is nothing more than an assumption which has been transformed into a monument to itself. We always have a choice as to whether or not we do this. Nothing is "self evident" if we're going to perform due diligence in the search for knowledge. I have yet to see an assumption, elevated to axiom, that must be accepted or discarded on nothing more than a whim, that we have no choice but to accept (though I've seen plenty that people have begged me to accept, demanded that I must accept, argued that I secretly do accept.....). Even the "axiom" that reason is the source of knowledge makes predictions which can be tested. It produces results. If it did not, there would be no such "axiom". If an axiom is a "take it or leave it" proposal, in and of itself, then the use of reason is no such thing. Simply because we can measure it by the results it brings. I needn't explain how reason works, I don't even need to know why reason works, to see the results. Again, it may be that something other than reason is at play, and that our use of reason leverages this instead of the elaborate system that we have defined as reason. It still works. It works if our existence is illusory, it works if our existence is an objective reality, and it works until it doesn't. We simply haven't found an instance (yet) where it fails to produce results (except in those instance where we discovered the "reasoning" we were using did not produce results, or produced results which were contradictory to themselves....then decided to call this line of reasoning "invalid", fallacy, etc. Simply put, our system of knowledge began with assumptions, but the train has long since left that station.

You're just repeating yourself here, you've shown no results. This is exactly what I'm criticizing, so you'll have to excuse me if I feel that the olive branch being offered here is simply a trojan horse (even if you don't intend it to be). Ive explained to you exactly why our body of knowledge would be un-phased if your existence was illusory, because it still produces results, even if this were true. The illusion called science works within the illusion called existence. I'm not even arguing that we do exist here. I'm accepting your argument as though it were factually accurate in every particular and explaining to you that it changes nothing with regards to the results. Even if our discussion were not sensible, even if reason were unreasonable (a meaningless statement if ever there was one) even if the reasoning leveraged by science was an illusion.......it still produces results.

Science does not make assumptions and then assert them as truths. Scientists make assumptions (sometimes), which then have to be verified by results, repeated, put through the grinder, subject to falsification, and then gives a stamp of provisional certainty, not truth, to it's conclusions. I'm not even sure you're clear in your own thoughts here. If you want to know why the world works? Why does a piston engine work? Scientific explanation for that. Why does combustion work? Scientific explanation for that. Why is there such a thing as combustion? Scientific explanation for that. Why/how is again you choosing to begin your statement with a fuzzy distinction, how very philosophic of you. There will eventually be a break in the chain, where we must simply say "We have no clue" but philosophy is incapable of going further there as well, and never made it as deep down the chain in the first place. Science attempts to safeguard itself against our understanding of ourselves, philosophy just keeps yanking it's dick as though it were somehow important simply because it comes from us, simply because we have thoughts. Well, that's been shown to be a terrible mistake time and time again. It's not as though science does not leverage philosophy, logic. It simply demands one more thing, evidence. This was a turning point for our species; realizing that our thoughts (and thought itself) may not be an accurate representation of reality, and something else was required if we wished to go any farther, or make corrections to the conclusions or previous systems had made. We did this because they were no longer working, no longer producing results. We had hit a wall. Even in your final statement here you've expressed an assumption where I have not, an axiom where I have none. You have assumed that there is a "why" beyond the "how". Something more than what can be demonstrated. Well, lets see some results from this assumption? Is this an axiom? Must I take it or leave it? I think not.

Now, I could talk your ear off about science, but in the end this is diversionary. Do you have any axioms for me to consider which do not fail as axioms by definition? Do you have any axioms which do fit the definition and have produced results? I'll toss you a link, as I'm pretty sure that this would do more than the pages of convo we've had thusfar. Please don't attempt to twist this into an axiom, as I have a great respect for this concept and utilize it, again, because it has produced results. You might argue that this was a product of philosophy, of an assumption, and once upon a time that was definitely true. As I mentioned above, the train has left that station. It's not something that I agree with in every particular. But it's a pretty good summary of where I'm coming from.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positivism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_rationalism
(notice that the one is a criticism of the other in many areas, and I'm definitely fond of both, I hope that you refrain from making some comparison to religion in my thoughts going forward, by insinuating that I take things as axioms, that I move forward from assumptions without questioning them because they cannot be questioned, as though I were adhering to some sort of dogma, that I had faith in some fundamental assumption that you believe science or empiricism could not operate without. I have to tell you, to me, there is no greater insult.)

[Epimethean]

LOL. We have in the past complained about rabid theists showing up and shitting about; now, we have been invaded by the "philosopher kings." I am coming to want to call the twain the "phrontisterion."

By the by, philosophy does not answer "why" the world works in any ultimate way.

Are you kidding me? I'm a naive philosopher fifty pages into my book of Kant and I gotta be the expert around here? No wonder why atheism's such a mess.

You do realize theology is philosophy, that science is derivative of natural philosophy, yeah? Cool.

So by calling it axiomatic, Perhaps and amkerman are calling it a priori; prior to experience - this argument against atheism - and why are they still going? Because they're right, and you and the rabid atheists ain't seeing it.

With me, they're wrong; simply because it is a moral wrong. The atheist position is to argue from a scientific perspective what is a metaphysical debate, attempting to determine truth based on evidence. It's like calling a strike out in football.

I don't do formal philosophy; besides, who wants to hear it? Let's just cut to the chase. A priori "god" is not congruent to a posteriori moral experience. Baby!

OK, team, atheist? That's what you look for; once they cross over into the corporeal realm of knowledge based on experience, let 'em have it.

Thanks, but you're not arguing my point, darling. Remember, you're insane.

[houseofcantor]

Nosir. I'm DSM IV Unspecified Psychosis - which you may refer to as metally disabled - or risk suit.

Hadda throw my "anti-whine whine" in there. WTF do I care? I experiment with my own morality; atheism is a cluster fuck. You wanna keep losing, fine. You don't realize that you feel unsatisfied because your morality tells you you lost, but you got no time for that shit? Fine.

Keep at it hammerhead. It'll be a nail sooner or later.

[Epimethean]

Not sure again what you're off the meds about, but losing is not something we've been doing here. This thread has yet to get anywhere where that would be an operative term. Atheism is only a cluster fuck for those with inner problems.

[amkerman]

It is impossible to be confident that our experience of reality is accurate without being confident that framework from which we observe reality is accurate.

We observe reality from the framework of consciousness.

Consciousness then must exist as real apart from our subjective experience of it.

The only things we are confident exist apart from our subjective experiences of them are universal forces.

Consciousness then is a universal force in the universe.

It is illogical to believe reality is contrary to scientific observation because we have not scientifically observed that to be the case.

Therefore it is illogical to believe consciousness is not a universal force.

[Welsh cake]

Perhaps if you would take the time to read what I said, it would not appear to be babbling.

I have mate. You're not making any sense. You and amkerman both abused Rhythm's politeness and patience by going completely off the rails. You made a ridiculous assertion that "Assumption is the root of everything. There is nothing objective, nothing true. We simply assume." which is nonsense.

For example, I do not assume I'm going to die someday. Death is something that is true, something we've all seen and/or experienced in some way or other. It is a biological fact, not a proposition. Then to prove a "point" you descended into a childish infinite regress argument.

You criticise science, but you see, that's the wonderful thing about science is its repeatability and how it thrives on criticism to refine itself. The scientific method is not perfect, no one said it was, but its the single, most useful tool we have for understanding our reality and discerning fact from fantasy. It does not make assumptions, it makes intelligible predications and calculations based on rigorous evidence and any available data regarding the phenomena in question. That's what makes it reliable, and why scientists are worth paying attention to, rather than philosophers wasting their lives working out the purpose of meaning when existence is void of meaning.

Consciousness then is a universal force in the universe.

You are making the fallacy of composition yet again.

Prove theism is logical AND provide evidence for consciousness existing outside a brain or shut up.

[Perhaps]

http://www.phy.duke.edu/~rgb/Philosophy/axioms/axioms/

The answers to everything you've proposed are contained within this link. If you don't want my words, then hear these. You have made an argument out of a discussion. You have chosen that one must be correct and the other must be wrong. I did not choose this, but now I am a part of this.

As much as my knowledge of science has been criticized, I have never criticized your understanding of philosophy. But now I must.

---

For example, I do not assume I'm going to die someday. Death is something that is true, something we've all seen and/or experienced in some way or other. It is a biological fact, not a proposition. Then to prove a "point" you descended into a childish infinite regress argument.

You continue to refer to the assumption of knowledge. I refer to the assumption of existence, also known as axioms or memes. If you don't understand what they are, then simply look them up. I'm not going to keep coming back to your arguments against my statements, as they have no merit.

If I say the sky is blue and you respond by saying no, the grass is green, then my original statement is not falsified, nor does your statement have anything to do with mine.