Posted: May 17, 2012 6:27 pm
rEvolutionist wrote:amkerman wrote:rEvolutionist wrote:Shrunk wrote:
To be honest, it's not exactly structured as an argument, is it?
If we say "God is a carrot", we are already stating that God exists, carrots exist (or at least one carrot does) and God is a carrot. So I don't really think the 2nd premise and conclusion add anything.
Exactly. Now if only we could get Amkerman to understand that about his version, then we could put this thread to bed!
I don't think this is on topic as I have still not made an argument for the existence of God, only the belief in the existence of subject-independent consciousness, which I have defined as God.
So you've made an argument for the belief in the existence of god? And why are we to be impressed by this? This is trivial. We all know there are people who believe in the existence of god.
But to preempt your argument further, i am defining a carrot as god. Just getting in early for when you might actually do as the thread's title suggests.
Of course there are people who believe in the existence of God. As the argument concludes everyone who believes in an objective reality necessarily believes in the existence of God whether they perceive this belief or not. As I have stated in at least triplicate now I did not start this thread, a mod did. My initial post was an explanation of the argument of reformed epistemology in another thread, in response to a poster who wanted to know the argument for why a belief in God was fundamental. I have no interest in providing am argument for something that cannot be proven on logical or evidentially substantiated grounds, which is precisely what it seems you expect me to do or think I am currently attempting to do.
Reformed epistemology (that belief in God is fundamental):
1. All knowledge/experience/perception/observation/understanding/measurement of (B) reality is dependent on (A) consciousness.
2. A cannot prove the truth (objectivity: subject independence) of B without proving the truth of A (identity theory of truth)
C1. Consciousness cannot prove the subject independence of reality without proving the subject-independence of consciousness
3. A cannot prove the truth of A (identity theory truth)
C2. Consciousness cannot prove the subject independence of consciousness
4. That which is not subject to rigorous proof can only be believed (definition of belief)
C3. The subject-independence of consciousness can only be believed.
1.All knowledge et al of reality is dependent on consciousness.
C1. Consciousness cannot prove the subject independence of reality without proving the subject independence of consciousness.
C3.The subject independence of consciousness can only be believed.
C4. Any belief about objective reality (anything you think/know/observe/measure/experience, if you belief they are true thoughts about an objective reality) IS DEPENDENT (as in, it necessarily is derived from and can not exist without) a belief in the subject-independence of consciousness.
As I have termed subject-indecent consciousness "God", all knowledge et.al of reality (if you believe reality isn't subjective, that is, as I keep stating) is dependent on a belief in God (although the labor is admittedly superfluous).
Thus, a belief in God is fundamental to all beliefs about objective reality.
Thus, reformed epistemology explained.
QED.
So I really don't understand where the existence of this "God" has anything to do with anything. I am not making a metaphysical argument but an epistemological one. Whether or not subject-independent consciousness exists in reality is of no consequence to the argument, but, if you believe in an objective reality it seems rather inescapable that you believe this subject-independent consciousness does exist, regardless of whether you perceive this belief in yourself or not.
Again, I'm fairly confident (like all the way confident) that one cannot plug "carrot" in for "consciousness" and still end up with a sound argument. Carrots are not discrete and unified entities. They are made of atoms and such. They are divisible, and anyones perception of carrots, our labeling of them as such, our knowledge of their properties, is wholly dependent on consciousness. Again, to reiterate a point that is continually being misconstrued I AM NOT saying that the existence of carrots is dependent on consciousness (although as an idealist this is a belief I hold) only that a belief in the objective existence of carrots, apart from anyone's subjective perceptions of them, is dependent upon a belief that consciousness itself is objective (the belief that consciousness exists apart from anyones perception of it.