My proofs for Islam

[Angrboda]

Anyways, we've discussed this argument endlessly.  It's been clarified and can be summarized in two premises:

If God doesn't exist or see us exactly as we are, we are an illusion.
We aren't an illusion.

A few additional thoughts. I think there might be some equivocating going on here with the use of the word “illusion”; not that fixing the problem is going to save your argument from its larger flaws, but I think it’s worth noting.

In the first premise you seem to be insinuating that if a god doesn’t exist, then this notion of a perfect, objective self would be illusory to us. But, in the second premise (we are not an illusion) you seem to be talking about our very existence as beings not being an illusion; as in, ‘we do in fact exist, therefore we are not an illusion.’  Almost everyone here disputes the former, but I can’t imagine very many people disagreeing with the latter. That can appear sneaky. You have to be clear about what you mean when you choose words to use in an argument, because things like this can come across as dishonest.

I think this stems from him not having a good theory of the self, much like he doesn't have a good theory of consciousness, so his ideas and use of these concepts varies wildly without any limiting factor because they aren't based in a definite, limited concept of them. If your ideas are fuzzy, your use of them is going to be fuzzy, too.

[GrandizerII]

If God doesn't exist or see us exactly as we are, we are an illusion.
We aren't an illusion.

Illusion with respect to what?

If God doesn't exist, then in what way are we an illusion?

[The Grand Nudger]

bro, do you sleep? Do you go off the forums ever? It's Sunday, you got to sleep in bro.

Sleep? What's that?

It's that thing that other people do, that makes them look like they're dead...and the thing that can get you dead-ed if you're not careful all over the world. 

[Mystic]

If God doesn't exist or see us exactly as we are, we are an illusion.
We aren't an illusion.

Illusion with respect to what?

If God doesn't exist, then in what way are we an illusion?

Our psychological/spiritual/moral traits don't have an accurate existence without an absolute perfect judge to see us.  They are not only fuzzy without God, but they don't have any basis to work with, no backing up by which we are estimating and looking far away to what we truly are, because there is no true us. There is nothing to say "well close enough", close enough to exactly what? It doesn't exist, there is no reality we are estimating, hence, it would be illusionary.

[LadyForCamus]

Illusion with respect to what?

If God doesn't exist, then in what way are we an illusion?

Our psychological/spiritual/moral traits don't have an accurate existence without an absolute perfect judge to see us.  They are not only fuzzy without God, but they don't have any basis to work with, no backing up by which we are estimating and looking far away to what we truly are, because there is no true us. There is nothing to say "well close enough", close enough to exactly what? It doesn't exist, there is no reality we are estimating, hence, it would be illusionary.

So what if that’s true? What matters about that possibility other than the obvious fact that you don’t prefer it to be true? You need to logically rule this out as a possibility, not simply state that you don’t prefer that option therefore it isn’t true. That’s how deductive reasoning works.

[The Grand Nudger]

Our psychological/spiritual/moral traits don't have an accurate existence without an absolute perfect judge to see us.  They are not only fuzzy without God, but they don't have any basis to work with, no backing up by which we are estimating and looking far away to what we truly are, because there is no true us. There is nothing to say "well close enough", close enough to exactly what? It doesn't exist, there is no reality we are estimating, hence, it would be illusionary.

So what if that’s true?

It would be horri-bru, just horri-bru. 

[Mystic]

Our psychological/spiritual/moral traits don't have an accurate existence without an absolute perfect judge to see us.  They are not only fuzzy without God, but they don't have any basis to work with, no backing up by which we are estimating and looking far away to what we truly are, because there is no true us. There is nothing to say "well close enough", close enough to exactly what? It doesn't exist, there is no reality we are estimating, hence, it would be illusionary.

So what if that’s true?

The implicit premise, and you guys have to start seeing implicit premises in normal speech, is that it's not true. We know very well we have accurate selves or we would not love/value people or their actions. 

Appreciating a single action, a single state, and you will see, what you are appreciating is that true accurate person, even if you don't fully see it.

Have a good day today to the extent when you look at a person you love, see that, what do you really believe? There is no true them or that there is, an accurate reality to who they are, even if all you can do is adore from a distance and estimate to who they are, by their actions.

[The Grand Nudger]

The implicit premise, and you guys have to start seeing implicit premises in normal speech, is that it's not true. We know very well we have accurate selves or we would not love/value people or their actions. 

Prove it. Prove..literally, any of that. Prove that we have an accurate view of ourselves. Prove that lacking an accurate view of ourselves we could not love. Prove that lacking an accurate view of ourselves we could not value action. Prove that you know otherwise, that you know it's not true

Any of it.

-and when you're done with that, which you will never be, you will still have a non seq on your hands.

[Mystic]

Valuing illusions is not valuing anything really, and if we truly believe that people are illusions and created in corrupt false state with no accurate backing, we would end up not valuing and cherishing people nor honoring them.

This stuff is pretty much foundational to who we are as humans.

[LadyForCamus]

So what if that’s true?

The implicit premise, and you guys have to start seeing implicit premises in normal speech, is that it's not true. We know very well we have accurate selves or we would not love/value people or their actions.

No, no MK.  You need to arrive at that conclusion.  You need to logically rule out all other possibilities, AND you have to show your work getting there is sound.  That’s how logical deduction works.  You don’t get to assert, “come on, you guys know I’m right.” and expect people to swallow that without question.