STEM is incomplete

[ateista]

We may have been talking past each other. I agree with the above. I would say that, if a 6-atom configuration “lost” a part (an atom), then the emergent attribute would change. Thus, specific emergent attributes depend on both the presence of certain parts and their arrangment. Do you agree with this?

Yes, I do. Both the actual physical elements and their arrangement (or pattern) must be taken into consideration.

 

[ateista]

The question is dubious because science does not answer it?

Your post is absolutely correct. Science answers “how” or “what”, rather than “why”

It is “dubious”, because it does not enhance out understanding. Science deals with understanding with the “how” - and hopefully with reproducing the questioned phenomenon. We do agree that science is not concerned with the “why”.

We need to be “intimately familiar” with something in order to study it?

Well, the phrase “intimately” was probably not necessary. We are only familiar with physical and conceptual existence. The hypothesized “third type” of existence is just that - a hypothesis, and undefined at that. I am still at a loss of differentiating between this type of “existence” and pure magic.

You may say that this is due to the fact of my lack of faith, but be as it may, I simply cannot fathom any existence which is not physical, yet active, which can interact with physical reality, yet cannot be affected by physical reality. I simply have no idea what such “existence” might be. It is pure magic, as far as I am concerned.

Just because we may lack first hand experience of something does not mean that that thing is not real. Reality exists independent of us.

I certainly agree that reality exists, whether we percieve or understand it or not. We may lack the sensory organs to directly experience radioactivity (for example) but radioactive materials exist - and they can be measured with an extention of our direct sensory organs. Yet, this does not apply to the hypothesized “third type” of existence. By definition, this kind of existence is immune to our senses, or any conceivable extention of them. So in what practical manner can we “study” this “existence”?

Because science cannot provide any reason for it.

Yes, it does. Science deals with phenomena which can be experienced either directly (through our senses) or indirectly (with an extension to our senses). If something cannot be experienced - in principle! - then it cannot be studied, it cannot be measured, it cannot be tested - and such it belongs to the realm of pure speculation.

If science managed to explain why knowledge of the**“why”** question is not necessary, that would be quite unusual.

But science does not deal with things outside the measurable, testable realm of existence.

Yes we can, read newadvent.org/cathen/06612a.htm

You also might want to check out the Summa: newadvent.org/summa/1.htm

The summa link has a section on angels, if you want info on spiritual existence other than God.

It is still just “magic”, nothing else.

Your last sentence is mere assertation, and something Catholics do not maintain.

Yes they do. “Concepts” like society, justice, love, honesty, integrity and so on, do not directly influence our existence. If one accepts and adheres to these concepts, then they will act in concordance with these ideas, or principles. But the concepts themselves are not “active”, they do not have an impact on physical reality.

 

[Sarpedon]

You seem to keep saying that science answers the how, not the why. This is not in dispute. What is in dispute is whether or not it is better to know why in addition to how, and whether such knowledge is attainable .

I contend that it is better to know both how and why. I also contend that scientism cannot provide a justification for its fundamental position through its self-imposed limitations. If you or anyone can provide a scientific experiment (that can be repeated by anyone), that offers some evidence that knowing the “why” question is either unattainable or does not offer valid knowledge, I will rethink my position. If no such experiment can be devised, then scientism undercuts its very foundation.

 

[Sarpedon]

I certainly agree that reality exists, whether we percieve or understand it or not. We may lack the sensory organs to directly experience radioactivity (for example) but radioactive materials exist - and they can be measured with an extention of our direct sensory organs. Yet, this does not apply to the hypothesized “third type” of existence. By definition, this kind of existence is immune to our senses, or any conceivable extention of them. So in what practical manner can we “study” this “existence”?

1. Due to the law of non-contradiction, we can now that logic applies to both forms of existence. Thus, we can study it through logic, without using our senses directly.

For example, assume that God is love. Love is selflessness. Since love is selflessness, love cannot be inordinately directed toward the self. God, however, is one, because there can only be one Supreme Being. God is also self-existent, so He relies on no other thing. If God is selflessness, that selflessness must be directed toward somone. That being or beings cannot be created, for God cannot rely on those created being for His essence. At the same time, He cannot love Himself in a selfish way. Thus, there must be persons in God, so that His selflessness has an object but does not rely on anything outside of Himself.

Undoubtedly, you will object to many points above, but this is just an illustration of how we can study spiritual existence. Just as with scientific theories, we can debate the various points endlessly, but the important part is that we can debate and study spiritual reality.

It is still just “magic”, nothing else.

I can’t say much to that.

Yes they do. “Concepts” like society, justice, love, honesty, integrity and so on, do not directly influence our existence. If one accepts and adheres to these concepts, then they will act in concordance with these ideas, or principles. But the concepts themselves are not “active”, they do not have an impact on physical reality.

I’m not talking about concepts. I am talking about God, which is a whole different situation.

 

[JDaniel]

I gleaned this from the posts pertaining to this subject… many of them.

Hmmm. But not from anything with an Imprimatur on it, I take it?

Yes, there can be… and will be. No question about that. However, the method of observation, hypothesis forming and checking for the predictablilty of the hypothesis has been tried and tested innumerable times. So far it worked. We all know that “past results do not guarantee future outcomes”, but in this case we can be very conficent that it will be so.

I think we’re off the track of understanding here. I thought that your were saying, in your earlier post, that "out of this incredible transfinite mix of aggregates, and across the 14 - 15 billions of years, plus of minus, that intelligence and reason came to be. Possibly, but, I do not agree that it “probably” did. The variables are infinitesimally against it. So, no “confidence” at all from my point of view.

Dan

 

[ateista]

You seem to keep saying that science answers the how, not the why. This is not in dispute. What is in dispute is whether or not it is better to know why in addition to how, and whether such knowledge is attainable .

So far, I agree.

I contend that it is better to know both how and why.

I think we are still not talking about the same thing.

Say, we observe that graphite is black, while diamonds are transparent (more or less). Yet they both are made of the same carbon atoms. It is a legitimate question to find out why diamond is transparent, while graphite is not - meaning to analyze the respective properties of the two substances and find the physical reason for the difference.

So, in this sense, science is concerned with the “why”.

But I suspect that you use the word “why” in a different manner. Could you elaborate?

I also contend that scientism cannot provide a justification for its fundamental position through its self-imposed limitations. If you or anyone can provide a scientific experiment (that can be repeated by anyone), that offers some evidence that knowing the “why” question is either unattainable or does not offer valid knowledge, I will rethink my position. If no such experiment can be devised, then scientism undercuts its very foundation.

Ahem, that is not a valid argument. It is just a different form of saying that empiricism cannot be verified empirically, therefore empiricism is self-refuting. I have seen this many times before, and there is loical error in it.

Scientism or empiricism are are methods. They deal with obtaining information about physical reality. But science and empiricism are not physically existing, ontological objects, therefore they cannot be scientifically or empirically “verified”. But that is not a problem.

Science (or empiricism which is the same) is a method, which can only be verified by the “pudding principle”: “the proof of the pudding is that it is edible”.

 

[ateista]

1. Due to the law of non-contradiction, we can now that logic applies to both forms of existence. Thus, we can study it through logic, without using our senses directly.

Yes, that is correct. Logic must be applied. But logic is a deductive method, so there must be a set of postulates as starting points. The problem is not just the starting points (and we may have difficulties in agreeing upon those), rather to step out of the realm of pure speculation.

Yes, one may speculate about God, but that does not lead to “existence” - since the concept of “existence” is - so far - undefined in this context.

For example, assume that God is love. Love is selflessness. Since love is selflessness, love cannot be inordinately directed toward the self. God, however, is one, because there can only be one Supreme Being. God is also self-existent, so He relies on no other thing. If God is selflessness, that selflessness must be directed toward somone.

Let’s stop here for a second. This is the point where the argument becomes nonsensical. If God is “alone”, there is nothing or no one toward whom a “selfless love” can be directed. Therefore the basic premise “God is selfless love” is self-contradictory.

That being or beings cannot be created, for God cannot rely on those created being for His essence. At the same time, He cannot love Himself in a selfish way. Thus, there must be persons in God, so that His selflessness has an object but does not rely on anything outside of Himself.

And this just reinforces what I said above. If there is nothing outside God, who can be selflessly loved, and God even cannot create them (to avoid reliance on something beside himself) then what does “selfless love” mean? Nothing at all. Selflessness presupposes the existence of someone or something outside the self.

What you say also contradicts the postulate that God is “one”. Now you say that God has “persons” inside him, yet God is “simple” without any “parts”. This is either self-contradictory or sheer nonsense.

Undoubtedly, you will object to many points above, but this is just an illustration of how we can study spiritual existence. Just as with scientific theories, we can debate the various points endlessly, but the important part is that we can debate and study spiritual reality.

Unfortunately the concept of “spiritual reality” is still undefined. Debate, yes. Study, no - at least not until “existence” is coherently defined.

 

[ateista]

Hmmm. But not from anything with an Imprimatur on it, I take it?

I am sure the Cathecism deals with it.

I think we’re off the track of understanding here. I thought that your were saying, in your earlier post, that "out of this incredible transfinite mix of aggregates, and across the 14 - 15 billions of years, plus of minus, that intelligence and reason came to be. Possibly, but, I do not agree that it “probably” did. The variables are infinitesimally against it. So, no “confidence” at all from my point of view.

I don’t really want to go into the details of probability theory here. It would take much more time than I am willing to spend on these boards. But I can tell you a little bit about it.

Probabilities are highy counterintuitive. One cannot rely on the intuitive feeling that “it seems” improbable.

Just one example. Suppose you toss a perfectly balanced coin 10 times. Suppose the result is HHHHHHHHHH (10 heads). Repeat the experiment, and the result is HHTTTHHTHT (a mixture of heads and tails). Intuitively it “feels” that the first result is highly improbable, while the second one is not. Incorrect intuition. Both are equally probable: 1 in 1024. But enough of this math lesson. If you are interested, you must study probability theory.

 

[JDaniel]

I am sure the Cathecism deals with it.

A Catholic catechism would have an Imprimatur. So, I’d love to see that.

Remember, our “vision” of it has been made dependent upon a crude “perception” of it, due to our difficulty in describing it. In other words, after death, for example, we know that there is “something” that leaves the body, but, we don’t know what it is really, so, we’ll call it a vapor or, wait, a “spirit”.

FONT=“Verdana”]I don’t really want to go into the details of probability theory here. It would take much more time than I am willing to spend on these boards. But I can tell you a little bit about it.

Probabilities are highy counterintuitive. One cannot rely on the intuitive feeling that “it seems” improbable.

Just one example. Suppose you toss a perfectly balanced coin 10 times. Suppose the result is HHHHHHHHHH (10 heads). Repeat the experiment, and the result is HHTTTHHTHT (a mixture of heads and tails). Intuitively it “feels” that the first result is highly improbable, while the second one is not. Incorrect intuition. Both are equally probable: 1 in 1024. But enough of this math lesson. If you are interested, you must study probability theory.

Good. I’d rather you didn’t go too deeply into it either.

However, despite the interesting information you have just provided, I must continue to think, as well as, I believe, do most other reasonable people, that odds such as “1 : infinity” is a tough proposition not to rule out almost instantaneously.

Dan

 

[Sarpedon]

The question of “why” refers to purpose. This is the “final cause” of Aristotle.

The existence of purpose is not necessary to address the question of purpose. One could argue that there is no purpose, and this could answer the question.

The real question is how you would go about determining whether there is a purpose and what that purpose is. I am sure you would agree that science cannot address the question of purpose, so how would you attempt to answer it?

Science (or empiricism which is the same) is a method, which can only be verified by the “pudding principle”: “the proof of the pudding is that it is edible”.

The results prove the method?

And the results are gained through the method?

 

[Sarpedon]

Let’s stop here for a second. This is the point where the argument becomes nonsensical. If God is “alone”, there is nothing or no one toward whom a “selfless love” can be directed. Therefore the basic premise “God is selfless love” is self-contradictory.

And this just reinforces what I said above. If there is nothing outside God, who can be selflessly loved, and God even cannot create them (to avoid reliance on something beside himself) then what does “selfless love” mean? Nothing at all. Selflessness presupposes the existence of someone or something outside the self.

What you say also contradicts the postulate that God is “one”. Now you say that God has “persons” inside him, yet God is “simple” without any “parts”. This is either self-contradictory or sheer nonsense.

First off, I don’t think you understood my explanation. As you said, love has to have an object other than the self, but God cannot rely on anything else, as you said, and thus we have the concept of “Persons” between which love is shared, within the Godhead. This is not saying that 3=1, rather 3X=Y. We aren’t saying “3 Gods in 1 God”, we are saying “3 Persons in 1 God”.

Second, my point was not to discuss Trinitarian doctine. My point was that we can study this questioned type of existence, as we have just done. I stated my argument based on logic, and then you responded with your argument based in logic. You have just used logic to evaluate this type of existence. If this existence cannot be studied, why did you apply logic to it?

Unfortunately the concept of “spiritual reality” is still undefined. Debate, yes. Study, no - at least not until “existence” is coherently defined.

Well, I gave you a link to hundreds of pages defining the faith, and you dismissed them as “magic”. I’ll give an overall definition of existence, from the Catholic Encyclopedia (newadvent.org):

“Existence is that whereby the essence is an actuality in the line of being.”

Of course, essence needs to be defined, but that’s a complex task and I think it is better explained in the article:

newadvent.org/cathen/05543b.htm

 

[twb1621]

the comprehension of reasoning in itself is limited.

 

[Sarpedon]

Probabilities are highy counterintuitive. One cannot rely on the intuitive feeling that “it seems” improbable.

In some cases you can. If someone came up to you and said that they knew that President Bush is actually an alien who was planted on earth to cause wars and sufferings to humans, would you take that seriously? It is certainly possible.

 

[ateista]

The question of “why” refers to purpose. This is the “final cause” of Aristotle.

Thank you for the clarification. The famous (or infamous) phrase that "everything acts toward a “purpose” - which is sheer nonsense.

The existence of purpose is not necessary to address the question of purpose. One could argue that there is no purpose, and this could answer the question.

Well, let’s analyze this problem.

There is no “purpose” in an inanimate universe. Things simply “are”, they don’t “care” what happens to them. The pebbles on the beach are not “better off” if the tides turn them onto nice, smooth, round objects.

There is no conscious purpose in a universe without “abstractly” thinking beings. Vegetation and animals simply try to survive, and propagate their genes, as their biological nature “dictates”. There is no “good” except survival and the creation of offsprings. Of course this “purpose” is instinctive, not conscious.

In a universe with beings capable of abstract thinking and conceptualization, there is “purpose” inasmuch as the beings set up “goals” for themselves. The biological “urge” to propagate their genes is still there, but it can be overridden by conscious decisions. Many people consciously avoid procreation, for various reasons.

But even in such a universe there is no generic, “abstract” purpose. There are zillions of individual purposes, created by the persons themselves.

Side note: That does not mean that this universe is necessarily “selfish”, that it must result in a dog-eat-dog competition. The persons involved may set up - at their discretion - common goals, cooperate in their efforts, and even willing to forego their personal goals for the goals of the community. All this can be observed, and as a libertarian I applaud these efforts - as long as they are the result of volitional cooperation, free of coercion and pressure.

I read once:

A man shouts at the Universe: “Sir, I exist!”. The Universe responds: “Yes, but that fact does not create in me a sense of obligation”.

The real question is how you would go about determining whether there is a purpose and what that purpose is. I am sure you would agree that science cannot address the question of purpose, so how would you attempt to answer it?

I don’t, because it is a bogus problem. Just because a question can be stated in a grammatically correct fashion, it does not mean that the question is legitimate or meaningful.

The results prove the method?

And the results are gained through the method?

Yes, of course. But why is it a surprise? We do not deal here with a scenario, where a snake starts to eat its own tail and when finishes, nothing remains.

Let’s not forget that there is a step in the process - the verification step. This step is objective and independent of the minds who set up the method and analyze the results. This objective step is very “unforgiving”.

If one presumes that one can fly as a bird by flapping the arms (hypothesis) and sets up an experiment to verify it (jumping off a high cliff) the gravity will prove (verification) that the hypothesis was incorrect, and the experiment ends with the death of the experimenter.

There is no need for anything else in the physical world. The hypothesis is set up, the experimenter checks the result, and if the experimenter survives, the proof of the pudding was successful. Of course this is just a crude summary, reality more sophisticated than that.

Of course if the hypothesis cannot be verified in principle (like the problem of God’s existence), there will be no experiments, then we deal with a purely speculative proposition, which can be safely “shrugged off” as irrelevant.

Another side note:

The only reason that this question is still debated is simple: the believers insist that their speculation must be taken seriously, and furthermore they insist that their unsupported propositons must be reflected in legislation (forbidding of abortions, and preventing birth control methods and many other things).

In other words the believers insist on spreading the “good news” - and forcefully at that. If they would keep their beliefs to themselves, if they would lead their lives according to their principles, there would be no confrontation. They would be peacefully tolerated as somewhat delusional, but harmless eccentrics and otherwise simply neglected.

 

[ateista]

In some cases you can. If someone came up to you and said that they knew that President Bush is actually an alien who was planted on earth to cause wars and sufferings to humans, would you take that seriously? It is certainly possible.

This is not really a problem of probabilities.

Not really “possible” according to our current understanding of physics. Faster than light travel is probably impossible and the distance between the stars is simply too large for interstellar travels.

But I see what you mean. Yes, sometimes intuition can be accurate, but the proof is still the actual calculation of the probabilities involved. And that can be very surprising.

Here is an actual problem.

Suppose there are “n” people in a room. What should “n” be if we want to make absolutely certain that at least two of them were born on the same day of the year? The answer is obvious: 367. There are 366 days (in a leap year), therefore if there are 367 people in a room, at least two of them will celebrate their birth day on the same day of the year.

Now let’s state a different question. Instead of making “absolutely certain” that at least two people will share the same birthday (the year they were born is disregarded), let’s ask this: what should “n” be if we want to have at least two people with the same birthday with a 50% probability?

The intuitive answer is 183, even by mathematicians. (I tested many of them.) The actual result is a very surprising: 23. If there are only 23 people in a room, the probability that at least two of them were born on the same day of the year is: 50%. If there are 40 people in a room, this probabilty jumps to 90%. With 60 people it is 99%. With 90 people it is virtually 100%. In other words: if you collect 90 randomly selected people, there will be at least 2, who celebrate their birthday on the same day of the year. There is no way that this result can be “guessed” without sitting down and actually calculating it.

 

[Sarpedon]

There is no “purpose” in an inanimate universe. Things simply “are”, they don’t “care” what happens to them. The pebbles on the beach are not “better off” if the tides turn them onto nice, smooth, round objects.

The “purpose” of pebbles does not depend on whether the pebbles care about their fate. Think about it this way- the purpose of an automobile (in relation to humans) is transportation. Whether or not the car cares about transportation is irrelevant.

There is no conscious purpose in a universe without “abstractly” thinking beings. Vegetation and animals simply try to survive, and propagate their genes, as their biological nature “dictates”. There is no “good” except survival and the creation of offsprings. Of course this “purpose” is instinctive, not conscious.

Purpose transcends things like this. One could argue that the purpose of animals is human companionship, appreciation, and food, and thus reproduction is a means to continue to fulfill that purpose.

In a universe with beings capable of abstract thinking and conceptualization, there is “purpose” inasmuch as the beings set up “goals” for themselves. The biological “urge” to propagate their genes is still there, but it can be overridden by conscious decisions. Many people consciously avoid procreation, for various reasons.

Well, I disagree with you. Aristotle thought that the purpose of humanity is to fullfill our true function, which is reasoning. Catholics maintain that the true function of man is to know, love, and serve God, which naturally encompasses such things as reason, art, prayer, acts of kindness, etc.

Side note: That does not mean that this universe is necessarily “selfish”, that it must result in a dog-eat-dog competition. The persons involved may set up - at their discretion - common goals, cooperate in their efforts, and even willing to forego their personal goals for the goals of the community. All this can be observed, and as a libertarian I applaud these efforts - as long as they are the result of volitional cooperation, free of coercion and pressure.

What do you mean by “at their discretion”? Is morality a personal subjective choice? If not, where does it’s objective nature derive from? Atoms?

I don’t, because it is a bogus problem. Just because a question can be stated in a grammatically correct fashion, it does not mean that the question is legitimate or meaningful.

Well, prove that the grammatically correct statement is illegitimate, or else you are ducking the question.

The question was:

“The real question is how you would go about determining whether there is a purpose and what that purpose is. I am sure you would agree that science cannot address the question of purpose, so how would you attempt to answer it?”

Yes, of course. But why is it a surprise? We do not deal here with a scenario, where a snake starts to eat its own tail and when finishes, nothing remains.

“The results prove the method?
And the results are gained through the method?”

See the circular reasoning? Science validates itself because it gives us accurate results. We know those results are accurate because science confirms them.

If one presumes that one can fly as a bird by flapping the arms (hypothesis) and sets up an experiment to verify it (jumping off a high cliff) the gravity will prove (verification) that the hypothesis was incorrect, and the experiment ends with the death of the experimenter.

There is no need for anything else in the physical world. The hypothesis is set up, the experimenter checks the result, and if the experimenter survives, the proof of the pudding was successful. Of course this is just a crude summary, reality more sophisticated than that.

If nothing else is necessary, then please provide an experiment to validate science, or admit that it cannot be verified through scientism’s self-imposed limitations.

Of course if the hypothesis cannot be verified in principle (like the problem of God’s existence), there will be no experiments, then we deal with a purely speculative proposition, which can be safely “shrugged off” as irrelevant.

In that case, if you fail to provide an experiment to validate scientism, scientism is purely speculative and can be shrugged off.

The only reason that this question is still debated is simple: the believers insist that their speculation must be taken seriously, and furthermore they insist that their unsupported propositons must be reflected in legislation (forbidding of abortions, and preventing birth control methods and many other things).

And murder, rape, incest, and all those other nasty things.

How can atheism derive binding morality from STEM?

They would be peacefully tolerated as somewhat delusional, but harmless eccentrics and otherwise simply neglected.

You seem to have quite a strong impression of theists as insane or “delusional”. Why is that?

 

[Sarpedon]

But I see what you mean. Yes, sometimes intuition can be accurate, but the proof is still the actual calculation of the probabilities involved. And that can be very surprising.

Have you calculating the probability of atoms being shaped by blind natural forces into a supercomputer capable of grasping and understanding the deepest secrets of existence?

 

[ateista]

Have you calculating the probability of atoms being shaped by blind natural forces into a supercomputer capable of grasping and understanding the deepest secrets of existence?

Sure. The a-posteriori probability is one, since it happened.

If you wish to argue based upon probabilities, you have to understand them first. You will find no mathematician (religious or not) who will take this line of argument seriously. Whoever came up with it, was ignorant of probabilities, and whose who try to pick up that argument are ignorant as well.

 

[ateista]

The “purpose” of pebbles does not depend on whether the pebbles care about their fate. Think about it this way- the purpose of an automobile (in relation to humans) is transportation. Whether or not the car cares about transportation is irrelevant.

Nonsense. Humans have a purpose in mind when they create an automobile. Humans have a purpose in mind when they fashion a hammer. Then the hammer may be used to hit nails, or it may be used to hit someone else in the head. Which one is the “purpose” of the hammer? Obviously neither.

Well, I disagree with you. Aristotle thought that the purpose of humanity is to fullfill our true function, which is reasoning. Catholics maintain that the true function of man is to know, love, and serve God, which naturally encompasses such things as reason, art, prayer, acts of kindness, etc.

That is only your opinion.

What do you mean by “at their discretion”? Is morality a personal subjective choice? If not, where does it’s objective nature derive from? Atoms?

Morality is an emergent attribute. In can be explained in the terms of sociology, not physics.

Well, prove that the grammatically correct statement is illegitimate, or else you are ducking the question.

Really? Then answer this question for me: “What is heavier, the smell of the color of nine, or the taste of purple?”. If you decline to answer, then are you ducking the question?

The question was:

“The real question is how you would go about determining whether there is a purpose and what that purpose is. I am sure you would agree that science cannot address the question of purpose, so how would you attempt to answer it?”

No, science cannot answer it, because it is not a valid question. You could “argue” that since science cannot answer a question about the nature of “souls”, therefore science is “incomplete”. Hogwash!

“The results prove the method?
And the results are gained through the method?”

See the circular reasoning? Science validates itself because it gives us accurate results. We know those results are accurate because science confirms them.

It is not circular, because it is not science that confirms them, it is reality that does.

And murder, rape, incest, and all those other nasty things.

I wish you would not waste my time with such “answers”. These are included in the legal system for purely secular reasons.

How can atheism derive binding morality from STEM?

There is no “binding” morality. Morality can be explained by sociology. It is another emergent attribute.

 

[Sarpedon]

Sure. The a-posteriori probability is one, since it happened.

How do we know we can correctly apprehend reality? How do we know it happened?

This is the crux of the problem. Atheists say **“I can know reality and do philosophy, so my mind must have evolved that way.” They take a unsupported assumption and make conclusions off of it. ** This works backwards, according to science. They take a statement and assume reality corresponds to it, rather than examining reality and making a statement off of it. Unless you can demonstrate to me that what we are doing on this thread gives true results, we cannot know whether our mind is built that way.

You cannot say “experience proves it, because we survive”, because our perception of experience and “survival” is mediated through the mind, which is in question.

Look at it this way- suppose you scan a yellow sheet of paper, and the computer (mind) renders it as green. An atheist would say, “We know it was scanned green, so the scanner must be designed to scan truthfully”.

Now, I don’t mean to argue for universal skepticism here. I believe that we can apprehend reality correctly. The difference is that I am not constrained by science. I am willing to make the unsubstantiated assumption that we can know reality. Atheists make the same choice, but they tend to only accept things through science. If we both make the same choice, without direct support, we can examine the relative likeliness of each position. One is that God designed our minds that way, the other is that by sheer good luck atoms happened to arrange in that fashion.