Attention Theists! Present your best argument for the existence of God!

[theVOID]

Welcome to the VOID's

Know Your Atheism! - Morality and Knowledge Edition

The family-fun show where theists try their best to string together a coherent sentence to describe atheism, ethics, science, objectivity and the like!

Our contestant for this week is........ AMKERMAN!!!!!

Welcome to the show AMKERMAN, Are you excited? I bet!

Our audience are a bunch of impatient clown zombies so let's not waste any more time!

Round 1: What does the word "Atheism" mean?

Atheism is correctly termed as a belief that there are no gods and is no God; it is not a lack of belief, a simple lack of belief is agnosticism. Atheism is a conviction.

FALSE

The correct answer is: The word Atheism comes from the latin A Theos or without (A) belief in a god (Theos). Atheists are people who do not believe in a god. Whether the person in question believes that a god does not exist (Gnosticism) or simply refrains from judgement (Agnosticism) is frankly irrelevant.

So there we go folks, after round one our friend Amkerman has a score of 0/1. Better luck next time, Amkerman!

Round Two:

How must a belief be proven to be true?:

Any belief, if sound, must logically be taken to it's ultimate conclusion to be proven.

TRUE

Correct! A belief must be based on an argument that is both sound and valid to be considered 'proven' to be true. This includes both the belief that God does exist as well as the belief that he does not. If one considers their belief to have been proven to be true they are Gnostics.

So after round two my pal Amkerman has a score of 1/2! Keep it up Amkerman!

Round Three:

Can we show from a naturalistic point of view that murder is "bad"?

A belief that some things are inherently good or bad, that there is purpose, value, meaning, or any objective reality aty all outside of human perception, necessitates faith. There is absolutely no empirical evidence that murder is "bad". Such a hypothesis necessarily denotes that value judgements are true.

FALSE

The Correct answer is: True! Looks like you need to brush up on your neuroscience, psychology and ethics Amkerman, because saying that murder (defined as wrongful killing of another person) is "bad" is as simple as demonstrating that the act of murdering a person has a negative impact on the values of another individual ('bad for me') or a net-negative impact on the community at large ('bad for us') - This is a straight-forward thing to empirically demonstrate and therefore there is empirical evidence that murder is "bad" in both the common sense and what could be considered a 'moral' sense.

So far you're 1/3 Amkerman, but there is still time to win this game! Keep it up!

Round Four:

Are value judgements possible without consciousness?

Value judgements are only possible through observation of a conscious entity.

TRUE

All values are the products of 'desires' and desires are only possible in conscious minds so this is necessarily true!

2/4 Amkerman! Nice work that round!

Ready for the next round! Here Goes!

Round Five:

Is consciousness required to be a 'primary (eternal) function' of the universe?

A belief that value judgements are true necessitates consciousness as a primary function of the universe, rather than a purely mechanical universe.

FALSE

A belief that 'value judgements are true' simply requires that there is some consciousness at some point who valued some thing, other wise there could have been no value judgements and the statement "value judgements exist" would return false. It does not require that this consciousness persist eternally.

Tough luck on that one Amkerman, you're now at 2/5... Better luck next round!

Round Six:

Give a description of ONE of the many possible defitions of God!

A belief that consciousness is a primary function of the universe, that consciousness pervades everything and is true apart from time or space, that things are in fact "real", that some things are inherently bad or good, right or wrong, true or not true, would be correctly termed a belief in "God".

TRUE

That was a soft-ball, but you have correctly identified ONE definition of "God". Keep in mind however that there are many others that would not be entirely consistent with your description.

Your score is 3/6, not too late yet Amkerman, you could win this yet!

Round Seven:

Would a belief in consciousness inherent in the universe be correctly termed as monotheism?

If consciouness is a primary function of the universe; if there is a particle that peervades everything, if any of our observations are actually correct, that particle or consciousness would be best described as a singular and constant thing rather than multiple different things. If consciousness exists outside the sphere of humanity, and is inherent rather than an emergent function of complex systems, that necessitates a belief in what would be correctly termed a monotheistic deity.

FALSE

There are other interpretations of the universe that presuppose consciousness as an inherent and primary singular entity that do not posit a deity. These belief systems, often loosely associated with Buddhism and Spirituality, posit that all conscious beings are actually simultaneous experiences of a single shared reality of consciousness that is both eternal and primary.

3/7 Amkerman, don't give up!

Round Eight:

Is a belief that a God does not exist both illogical AND counter-intuitive?

A belief that this "God" does not exist, while wholly rational, is illogical and counter-intuitive. it is committing a fallacy of invincible ignorance and contrary to all scientific observation and achievement.

HALF RIGHT

While it is certainly true that the statement "God does not exist" is unscientific, it is not necessarily counter-intuitive. Nothing is inherently intuitive and people's different subjective experiences lead to different intuitions - Claiming that belief that a god does not exist is "counter-intuitive" is plain false, there are a great many people who's intuition does in fact lead them to believe that a god does not exist.

Score: 3.5/8 - Half a point on that round is better than nothing I guess. Onto the next round!

Round Nine:

Does being an atheist mean you believe that there is no objective truth?

A belief that objective truth does not exist is a belief that nothing actually exists outside of our own consciousness. That the only reason things are real is due to our perceptions and out brain, chemical reactions, neuroscience. A truely atheistic world view necessitates that gravity does not "exist", laws of physics are mere conscious observations that have no inherent truth besides that which humans ascribe them. Atheism can not coexist in a sceintifically objective worldview.

FALSE

Being an Atheist DOES NOT mean that you do not believe that statements about the universe can never be said to be objectively true - for something to be objective simply means that it is not dependent on the opinions of attitudes of a persons. For instance; it is objectively true that I enjoy the taste of the stir-fry noodles that I ate for tea - this is not an opinion, there are empirical facts to be known about the state of my brain during consumption of food products and enjoyment is simply a word to describe a particular pattern of activity in the brain elicited by chemical reactions that we later consciously experience (the process of enjoyment begins before our experience of it).

You've got a score of 3.5/9 - Tough luck, you can't win, but you can still try and improve your score overall, let's continue!

Round Ten:

If god exists, is he contingent upon man-made religion?

Religion and "God" are not the same. If "God" exists, it exists apart from man-made religions and in-spite of them, not beccause of them. Religion was created by primitive man to explain how and why things are objectively true. All religion, including science, was inspired by a belief in objective reality, in real truth, a belief in "God'.

TRUE

If god does exist, and religion can't create gods, then god was not created by religion. It's a mighty big IF though!

Your Score: 4.5/10!

Round Eleven:

What is Atheism and what do atheist believe their not believing in a God means?

Atheism is a belief that things are not real. Most atheists, with their limited intellects (which usually surpass the intellects of their theist counterparts) believe that they attack or disbelieve iin "God" when in reality they are simply attacking religion.

FALSE

Atheism means without a belief in a god and atheists who do not believe in a God necessarily do not believe that they are attacking something that they DO NOT BELIEVE IN.

Score: 4.5/11. Maybe you can score some in the last few rounds.

Round Twelve:

Does an atheist believing in objective truth and reality outside of their own experience necessarily mean they believed in a monotheistic deity?

Logically, if one was being intellectually honest, most atheists actually believe in what would correctly be termed a montheistic deity, of "God", that truth and reality exist outside of human comprehension and understanding, even if they say they don't.

FALSE

It is possible to believe that truth and reality exist outside of human comprehension and understanding EXTREMELY EASILY. This is because WE ADMIT WE DON'T KNOW EVERYTHING and WE ADMIT WE DON'T UNDERSTAND EVERYTHING. This NECESSARILY means that we believe in truth and reality existing OUTSIDE of human comprehension.

Score: 4.5/12.

That's a total score of 37.5%, not very good.

You should really go and read some basic naturalistic philosophy and scientific literature, because you're clearly lacking on your descriptions of it, and Atheism.

[Cinjin]

Brilliant

[Jackalope]

Brilliant

So says the guy who inadvertently converted me to Christianity this morning.

[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.

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.

---

All universal forces are experienced through consciousness

If a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to hear it does it make a sound. The widely accepted answer is no.

Three monks looking at a flag in the wind.
Monk 1. The flag moves.
Monk 2. No. The wind moves, and the wind moves the flag.
Monk 3. No. Your mind moves them both.

(motion is a paradox. It's really quite interesting.)

Consciousness is then required to experience gravity. It is a primary function of the universe whereas all physical forces are secondary. Consciousness is responsible for everything that has been created in the universe, and the universe itself.

[downbeatplumb]

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.

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.

Consciousness is not a universal force.

Consiousness is the fireing of neurons within the brain.

Now the brain itself is made of matter which is basically interactions of quantum forces, but i dont think thats what you meant was it!

After all if follow this to its logical conclusion then everything is a universal force. Including that shit i trod in last week.

[amkerman]

No. The shit could not be formed, or experienced if not for universal forces. That shot is merely an effect.

---

* shit not shot

---

Downbeat we will never agree. We are at an impasse. You think physical forces and objects created the universe and consciousness. I think consciousness created physical forces and objects and the universe. I have come to the conclusion that your belief is illogical because it is not observed in science and that my belief is logical because it is supported by quantum observation. More to the point, belief that consciousness is merely the effect of physical interactions negates the validity of all scientific observation and human experience.

[downbeatplumb]

Downbeat we will never agree. We are at an impasse. You think physical forces and objects created the universe and consciousness. I think consciousness created physical forces and objects and the universe. I have come to the conclusion that your belief is illogical because it is not observed in science and that my belief is logical because it is supported by quantum observation. More to the point, belief that consciousness is merely the effect of physical interactions negates the validity of all scientific observation and human experience.

So physical objects/forces can't be observed but conciousness can eh.

I dont have beliefs, i think things are true based on evidence, not philosophical bollocks that boils down to jack shit.

Where is your ascertian that the uiverse is created purely by consousness supported by the facts?

Are you talking about the hiesenbergs uncertainty?

If so I dont think it means what you think it means.

[amkerman]

I didn't state anything you just claimed. Consciousness can not be observed just as gravity can not be observed. We can only observe the effects. We can't get outside of consciousness or the laws of physics to observe them. We are bound by them. I am talking about heisenbergs uncertainty principle inasmuch as under certain conditions w/o any interaction of most physical forces (save conscious thought about the object) things only exist as possibilities, not states. I get the principle. You should watch: Aaron O'Connell: making sense of a visible quantum object on TED Talks. Very interesting.

[theVOID]

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 do not observe reality from a framework, rather, we observe distinct aspects of reality and then use a framework post-observation to attempt to create a coherent picture of reality.

We observe reality from the framework of consciousness.

Consciousness is NOT a framework, all frameworks are constructs designed to aid in understanding, be they evolved frameworks tuned by natural selection (such as our intuitions) or more abstract frameworks (like mathematics) that are designed in response to various challenges.

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

Let's forget for a second that you were wrong about the first two claims... How the hell do you get from "we observe reality from the framework of consciousness" to "consciousness must exist as real apart from our subjective experience"?

Complete non sequitur in addition to bunk premises... Logic fail.

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

Are you telling me you have objective experiences of universal forces? You do realise that is an oxymoron don't you? There is no such thing as an "objective experience".

Consciousness then is a universal force.

No, it isn't. Can you demonstrate a single instance of consciousness outside of a brain?

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

Look, just stop pretending you're intelligent, you are not, you can't even string together a coherent sentence.

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

Worst.Argument.EVER.

All universal forces are experienced through consciousness

If a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to hear it does it make a sound. The widely accepted answer is no.

Three monks looking at a flag in the wind.
Monk 1. The flag moves.
Monk 2. No. The wind moves, and the wind moves the flag.
Monk 3. No. Your mind moves them both.

(motion is a paradox. It's really quite interesting.)

Consciousness is then required to experience gravity. It is a primary function of the universe whereas all physical forces are secondary. Consciousness is responsible for everything that has been created in the universe, and the universe itself.

*Sigh*

1. Motion is not a paradox.

2. Of course consciousness is required to experience gravity, consciousness is necessary for ALL experience.

3. You have roughly the same IQ as some stale bread.

[amkerman]

What is your IQ void? Just for my own edification.