Definition of God: First cause, prime mover, objective source of human purpose (final cause) and resulting morality, source of free will; omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent inasmuch as principles of logic allow. I am not talking in particular about any specifically defined religious interpretation of god, such as the christian or islamic god.
Definition: Intellectual dishonesty occurs when (1)one deliberately mischaracterizes their position or view in order to avoid having to logically defend their actual views; and/or (2) when someone is arguing, or making statements against a position while remaining willfully ignorant about that position, and/or (3) when someone categorically and/or pejoratively dismisses all existent and/or potential evidence in favor of a conclusion they claim to be neutral about, whether they are familiar with that evidence or not.
The argument against weak atheism:
Weak, or negative atheism is the lack of any belief that a god exists, and the lack of belief that god probably exists, and is not the positive belief that gods do not exist.
The following is a brief summary of the evidence for a general finding that a god of some kind exists, even if variantly interpreted or culturally contextualized (one can generally look up these arguments and evidences using google or bing):
1) Anecdotal evidence for the apparently intelligently ordered anomalous, miraculous (defying expected natural processes and probabilities) events attributed to god, such as signs or answers to prayers to god, or the ability to manifest or positively affirm such events through free will intention;
2) Testimonial evidence (first-hand accounts) of experience of such phenomena
3) The various Cosmological Arguments for the existence of god
4) The Strong Anthropic (or Fine Tuning) argument
5) The empirical, scientific evidence assembled in the strong anthropic argument in #4;
6) The Moral Arguments for the existence of god.
7) Empirical and testimonial evidence of phenomena closely correlated to the existence of a god of some sort, such as the survival of consciousness after death, and the existence of an afterlife realm, and the apparent agreement of afterlife entities that a god and human purpose exist; the evidence for interactions with correlated entities such as angels and demons (which seem to act to influence our free will towards or away from our human purpose), etc.
While the various arguments listed (all of which, to some degree, begin with empirical evidence) have been subject to counter-arguments and rebuttals of varying strengths and weaknesses, one must not lose sight that while there is much evidence (as listed above) in favor of the existence of god; there is zero evidence (to my knowledge) or rational argument (to my knowledge) that no such god (as defined above) exists.
[Note: One may argue that the Christian god doesn’t exist because of certain contradictions contained in the expressed nature and actions of that entity (or of the Islamic god); and there are such arguments – but this thread is not about such gods, so please adhere to the stated premise.]
The rebuttals to these argument are simply attempting to show weaknesses or alternatives to the arguments themselves so that such arguments cannot be taken as convincing (that god exists); such counter-arguments do not make the case that god (as described above) in fact does not exist.
Also, the testimony of religious adherents of various specific gods can be counted as evidence of the god premised in this argument in the manner that various various cultures can vary widely in their description of certain phenomena or experiences, and come up with widely variant “explanations”; what is interesting as evidence here, though, is the widespread crediting of similar kinds of phenomena and experience to a “god” of some sort (which might be the case of blind or ignorant people touching different parts of an elephant and thus describing “what the elephant is” in various ways). Such testimonial evidence can be counted in favor of the premise here, but cannot be held against it where it varies, because it is not testimony that such a god doesn’t exist.
If a “weak atheist” claims to “lack of belief” because there is “no” evidence for god, they are necessarily being intellectually dishonest, because they certainly aren’t privy to all potential or available evidence. They cannot claim to not know of the evidence for god after having perused the above evidence.
If the “weak atheist” is not aware of any compelling evidence, then any categorical claim they make about the available evidence they are not privy to – that it is not credible or convincing – is again intellectually dishonest because they are making a categorical claim about something they have no knowledge of.
If we have a weak atheist who is aware of the existence of the above evidence and agrees that there might be more evidence they are not privy to; and who does not categorically assert problems with the evidence they have not yet seen; and who does not categorically dismiss the available evidence as “non-evidence” (such as: hypocritically accepting testimonial evidence as evidence when it supports what they already believe, but dismissing it when it supports the existence of god) but rather states that the available evidence they have seen is not compelling towards a conclusion that god exists; then one must ask the following:
In the face of such huge amounts of evidence – thousands of years of testimony and anecdotal stories; many sound arguments based on empirical evidence and apparently necessary logical premises and inferences; and the complete lack of any attempt to make a sound argument that god (as described above) in fact does not exist – one must ask: how can any intellectually honest person come to any conclusion other than that god probably exists, even if god is poorly and diversely defined, and even if the experience of god is open to interpretation and misunderstanding?
As an analogy: even if one has never personally experienced “love”; in the face of thousands of years of testimony and anecdotal stories that love exists, and empirical evidence supporting that certain physical states correspond to assertions of experiences of love, would it be intellectually honest to “lack belief” that love exists, or would it be intellectually honest to hold the view that even though one doesn’t experience love (or using the same argument, color, joy, dreams, etc.), that love probably exists – even if people are widely disparate in their explanation, description, or presentation of what love is?
That I am aware of, there is zero evidence, no argument, and no anecdotal or testimonial evidence that god does not exist (because lack of experience of a thing isn’t evidence the thing doesn’t exist), and there is a vast array of logical, anecdotal, testimonial and empirical evidence that god does exist.
Even if one doesn’t find that evidence compelling for for a final conclusion that god exists, it is at least, if one is intellectually honest, compelling to the point that when one weighs the balance of the evidence for and against, that one must admit that it is more probable that god exists that that god does not exist, which cannot be said to be an atheistic point of view at all.
The argument against strong atheism:
Strong atheism is defined as the assertion that no god or gods exist whatsoever.
First, it is obvious that strong atheism cannot be logically supported, simply because it is impossible to prove (not in the absolute sense, but in the “sufficient evidence” sense). There may be evidence that certain gods, or kinds of gods, do not exist; but there is certainly no evidence or argument (that I’m aware of, anyway) that no significant, meaningful god or gods whatsoever exist.
Instead, strong atheists usually attempt to shift the burden onto theist by essentially asking the theists to prove the atheist position wrong. However, that is not the theists’ burden.
Strong atheism is a sweeping, categorical, negative assertion that something does not exist at all, anywhere. However unlikely one fineds it, it might be true that a god of some sort exists, so the strong atheist position would be excluding a potentially true explanation from consideration unnecessarily.
What is the useful point of a metaphysical position that excludes a potentially true explanation from consideration? What does strong atheism bring to the table of debate other than the potential for intractable error and denial of potential truth for the sake of a sweeping, unsupportable, universally negative assertion?
Conclusion: atheism of any sort is an untenable position for any intellectually honest, rational, and informed person. The belief that god does not exist, or that it isn’t more likely that god exists than not, can only be a valid position based on ignorance of the available evidence and argument for god, or a pseudoskeptical, a priori dismissal of all of the evidence for god based on ideological bias.
(Reposted here from a post I previously made under another name, in another forum, with a few minor edits and additions.)
WJM: “You also cannot know that cars exist outside of your experience or that other people you are interacting with are conscious entities.”
Yes, I can (using knowledge in the commonly used sense of: well justified and supported belief). I have made an argument how I can know these things. If you wish to challenge my position, please engage the argument. Simply re-asserting your position does not invalidate my position or strengthen yours in the least.
WJM: “If you do not believe you have access to an objective arbiter (whether you can ever know it or not), then all of your posts are hypocritical, self-conflicting rhetoric because you post as if you can arbit a true statement from a false and and your explicit implication is that others should reach the same conclusions.”
Are you reading anything any of us are writing??? I do not only believe that I have access to an objective arbiter, I know it (even though you know well what I mean when I use the word *objective*, I feel the need to pre-emptively repeat the definition: experience independent of individual variations of thought and perceptible by all observers)!!! Conversely, posting as if you can arbit a true statement from a false when you don’t actually know whether you can is what’s hypocritical!!! Look up the word hypocrisy: the pretense of possessing virtues that one does not actually possess – that’s what you are doing!
And while you are using the dictionary, I suggest that you also look up the words *explicit* and *implicit*. Hint: they are antonyms.
William,
Your claim that libertarian free will is a prerequisite for “meaningful deliberation” makes no sense. Deterministic processes are perfectly capable of analyzing information and producing true conclusions, as computers amply demonstrate.
On the flip side, libertarian free will, if it existed, would not insulate one from error. A free will can make mistakes.
Thus free will is irrelevant, and the real question is whether our minds — free or not — are reliable. Neither the theist nor the atheist can assume that his or her mind is reliable. It’s something that must be tested “from the inside”, and such testing, being a product of the mind, could itself be flawed. In any case the testing will be incomplete.
Thus any truth claim — even a tautology — should be regarded as provisional in a sense.
You cannot know this is the case, since like the rest of us, all you have, ultimately, is your personal experience. “Others agreeing with you” is still your personal experience that others are agreeing with you. Every source of information you have access to is, in the end, nothing but your personal experience.
Even so, you still must rely on free will as I have described, and an arbiter of truth as I have described, because your system of “others agreeing with you” still begs the question of meaningful deliberacy and arbitration.
Computers produce whatever they are programmed to produce, whether what they produce is true or false.
William J Murray,
This statement shows that you know as little about how computers work as you do about how a feedback loop works.
ID proponents are completely incapable of understanding the concept of learning.
Rather than see behavior as a learning system, they invent magical explanations.
WJM: I may appear to be hostile and unhelpful to you, but I’m seriously trying to communicate.
Learning theory, feedback, incremental and iterative change with feedback are all evolutionary concepts, and ID proponents never seem to acknowledge their existence.
My own college training was in special education, and there was a “two cultures” problem going back to the 60s. There have always been people who just don’t get it. they can’t understand incremental change and feedback. As teachers they are generally failures. As teachers of the handicapped, they are disasters.
Then you are conceding that deterministic processes (such as computer programs) can produce true output.
If so, why couldn’t a deterministic brain do the same?
If a computer doesn’t need libertarian free will in order to produce true output, why does a human need it to “deliberate meaningfully”?
Can a solipsist ever be robbed? If a solipsist loses something, where does it go? Why would a solipsist take out insurance? Should solipsists wear seat belts?
Does it make sense for a solipsist to sue for libel? Can a solipsist ever lose a debate?
What happens when a solipsist gets amnesia? If a solipsist loses consciousness, who is around to help? Who delivers the morning newspaper when the solipsist is asleep?
Why should a solipsist ever seek an education? “Who” would teach him? “Where” would the “knowledge” come from?
If reality is whatever one wants it to be and nobody can tell the difference, then how can one assert that there are no realities out there in which one CAN make distinctions? And if one is not in that particular reality, how would he know?
WJM: “You cannot know this is the case, since like the rest of us, all you have, ultimately, is your personal experience. “Others agreeing with you” is still your personal experience that others are agreeing with you. Every source of information you have access to is, in the end, nothing but your personal experience.”
This is amazing. It’s worse than talking to a wall. Let me repeat: Yes, I can (using knowledge in the commonly used sense of: well justified and supported belief). I have made an argument how I can know these things. If you wish to challenge my position, please engage the argument. Simply re-asserting your position does not invalidate my position or strengthen yours in the least.
Maybe it helps to clarify something, again: I am not, and have never, denied that every source of information I have access to is my personal experience. I am denying that this means that all the things I experience are therefore generated by me. I have given an argument how I can know this. You have not engaged this argument.
WJM: “you still must rely on […] an arbiter of truth as I have described”
As I have laid out in detail just above, the *arbiter of truth* contained in your philosophy is irrelevant and useless, since it does not provide the potential for you to deliberately avoid delusion.
keiths: “Neither the theist nor the atheist can assume that his or her mind is reliable. It’s something that must be tested “from the inside”, and such testing, being a product of the mind, could itself be flawed. In any case the testing will be incomplete. Thus any truth claim — even a tautology — should be regarded as provisional in a sense.”
Yes. That’s exactly what I mean by knowledge: a belief that is well supported by evidence, i.e. has been tested for its reliability. That any knowledge is incomplete and provisional is contained in this definition, and probably an obvious, natural component of the concept for most of the posters here (though maybe not many theists).
I think what WJM is expressing is his belief that without an objective frame of reference, all of our experiences are too subjective to trust. And where do we come up with this objective frame of reference? Well, we make one up, and BELIEVE that it exists and is objective. If we do this right, this objective source assures us that our opinions are correct, and we can KNOW they’re correct, because they have been objectively evaluated.
And therefore it follows that if you do not make up an imaginary objective source, you cannot rationally justify your opinions.
And how can we be sure that our imaginary source is truly objective? This requires sincere belief, and I mean impenetrably sincere. Get past that hurdle, and all else follows smoothly.
“And therefore it follows that if you do not make up an imaginary objective source, you cannot rationally justify your opinions.”
I know, right? Of course, in what language that counts as *rational* is beyond me…
“If we do this right, this objective source assures us that our opinions are correct, and we can KNOW they’re correct, because they have been objectively evaluated”
Actually, it’s a lot worse than you give WJM credit for: according to his philosophy, one’s opinion may happen to be correct in relation to this imaginary objective reference frame. But one won’t actually know whether that is the case. So, this reference frame is without practical relevance, and he’s right back to having nothing but the subjective experiences to try and justify his opinions!
Madbat,
Exactly right. It does no good for WJM to invoke an “objective arbiter of truth” if we don’t have reliable access to that arbiter. Without reliable access, we can never be absolutely certain that any particular thought is correct, or that any of them are.
And of course we don’t have reliable access to the arbiter, because if we did, we would never make mistakes. This is clearly not the case.
Theists and materialists alike must assess the reliable of their minds from the inside. In this sense we are all in the same boat.
Where the materialist has the advantage over the ID-style theist is that evolutionary theory explains both 1) why reason is basically reliable, and 2) why it has the many quirks and faults that it does. The ID theist can only shrug and say “I guess God wanted it that way,” with no justification.
Well, you’re so focused on the logic that you have forgotten that this isn’t about logic at all, it’s simply about sincere belief. WJM knows that he’s right because his imaginary source tells him so, and he knows his imaginary sources is objective because he sincerely believes it.
Sincere belief is a surefire way to reify the imaginary, in the minds of those who need Absolute Certainty. Who has ever heard of any Believer submitting a prayer and being told his opinion is wrong?
I don’t believe things – anything – in the manner you describe. Everything I believe, I only hold as conditional and provisional in relation to whether or not they produce the results I desire. This is an utterly false trope that shows you incapable of absorbing even simple and basic things I state.
The rest of you are reiterating Madbat’s ongoing confusion. I’m not making an argument of physical fact or evidence; I’m making an argument about what is necessarily required philosophically (not physically) for anyone to engage in arguments meaningfully (non-rhetorically) and to meaningfully employ any epistemology.
Arguments and consensual-empiricism are both epistemologies. Epistemologies can only be employed by a being that is seeking to gain knowledge. In order to apply any epistemology, that being must (philosophically, not physically) be assumed to have qualities that can meaningfully utilize those epistemologies towards gaining knowledge.
One can certainly ignore the philosophical, ontological requirements indicated by their use of an epistemology and use that epistemology just fine. One can even hold an ontological framework that logically contradicts the meaningfulness of their epistemology, and still utilize the epistemology just fine, whether they know their ontology contradicts the logical requirements of the epistemology they use or not.
And so we get the view that ontology is a bunch of meaningless BS; who cares what the ontology is, if the epistemology works find whether you are a materialist atheist or a fundamentalist Muslim?
The problem is, however, when the atheistic materialist lays claim that the epistemology supports an (atheistic materialism, no free will, no objective arbiter of truth) ontology that, if true, would invalidate the meaningfulness of the epistemology. Atheistic materialists conflate their successful use of an epistemology while holding their ontological perspective to be the case as evidence that atheistic materialism is true.
Because I can use a hammer to pound a nail in while believing in god, doesn’t mean it is more likely that god actually exists. Just because atheistic materialists can utiilize science successfully doesn’t mean atheistic materialism is more likely to be true. Science is not the same thing as “atheistic materialism”; it is only a means by which many physical events are reliably predicted and utilized.
So, I’m not making a claim of physical fact that those claiming to be atheistic materialists cannot successfully employ a useful epistemology; I’m pointing out that they are successfully employing that methodology in spite of the necessary philosophical ramifications their ontology has on the value of those epistemologies.
Now, let’s look at the issue of an objective arbiter of truth. If all of us do not implicitly agree that there is an objective arbiter of true statements (logic), then we are all employing nothing but rhetorical arguments, trying to manipulate others however we might to agree with us or banish other from our tribe. Whether we can perfectly, or reliably, or deliberately utilize it or not is entirely irrelevant; we must assume it exists, and must attempt to work around error, misconception, and potential delusion in search of that, or else what are we doing?
IOW, unless you are arguing towards an objectively true, valid and universally binding statement that we expect others to agree with as true and valid, about whether or not atheism can be a rational perspective, then you are not arguing in good faith.
To argue in good faith means, at least to me, to attempt to uncover the truth, and be willing to admit you are wrong in the face of an objectively discernible true statement. If you actually do not believe such an objective arbiter of true statements exist, then what are you arguing for? To simply move others to agree with you, by whatever tactic or rhetoric available?
It seems that Elizabeth should state what she means about “arguing in good faith”; in good faith towards what purpose? To unveil or discover truth, or in good faith towards protecting one’s own views and attacking that of others?
One can believe all sorts of rubbish and get the results one desires. There are, for example, all sorts of superstitious systems for gaming the stock market. Those who win believe it was their system.
The same can be said for people who believe in the predictions of psychics. They remember the predictions that come true.
It is precisely the question of what produces reliable results that interests science.
Because scientific methodology works doesn’t mean atheism or materialism is true, nor does it mean one has a rationally compatible pairing of ontology and epistemology.
But you have stated recently that:
“Everything I believe, I only hold as conditional and provisional in relation to whether or not they produce the results I desire. “
So logically you would adopt or at least rely on a methodology that maximizes results.
Maximizes the results I am in pursuit of, yes.
One can choose what to pursue. Are you arguing that reality is capricious as to cause and effect?
I’m asking because there appears to be some suggestion in your writing that results depend on your belief in them. If so, this is precisely the confirmation bias that science seeks to avoid.
It’s only “confirmation bias” if it is not true that beliefs can generate results. If it is true that beliefs can generate results, then that would be a factually true condition of existence that science (at least as currently, officially defined) would be dedicated to avoiding.
Most of human history has been driven by the belief that beliefs influence results. It’s sometimes called magic and sometimes called superstition.
William J Murray,
With your level of belief, you should be one of the people here who could possibly generate results.
There are many people in this world who could benefit from this ability.
Have you healed anyone suffering from a disability?
If you can, why would you not offer your services to the world on a permanent basis?
Post hoc ergo prompter ars magica?
WJM, you do understand that within materialism, the “objective arbiter of truth” is the material world itself? As such, our truthful access of it is as unreliable as a one that is supernatural. Furthermore, a supernatural source is only valuable if it allows for and/or reliably interacts with a true physical reality.
Now your contention presupposes that material processes cannot in and of themselves be true. Thus the existence of the factual/logical relationships that we observe/infer cannot be true unless there first exists a separate and independent supernatural truth that confers truthfulness upon material processes. However, nothing requires said supernatural source to deliberately and accurately transfer truth to material reality. So it can not be logically discounted that the reality we perceive is a deception independent of a supernatural source of truth, in which case the ontology of theist and the atheist-materialist are equally suspect: whereas the theist assumes that the self-consistently true supernatural source to faithfully render a true reality, the atheist-materialist assumes material reality can be assumed to be self-consistently true.
Of course you could have learned by expanding your study of philosophy to include theories opposed to your own, especially those developed in the last fifty years. But then that would require a genuine interest in gaining knowledge for the purpose of understanding truth.
That was well stated.
No, it’s not, because nobody experiences “the material world itself”; they only experience – at best – mental interpretations of stimuli that are labeled, organized, and processed through various mental functions.
Nobody said anything about anything “supernatural”, so that is a straw man.
The rest of your post is the erroneous product of these misconceptions.
WJM: The rest of you are reiterating Madbat’s ongoing confusion. I’m not making an argument of physical fact or evidence; I’m making an argument about what is necessarily required philosophically (not physically) for anyone to engage in arguments meaningfully (non-rhetorically) and to meaningfully employ any epistemology.
Would you stop labeling my arguments as *confusion*, and instead just engage them? Are you incapable of doing that????
I know that you are not making an argument about physical fact or evidence! My argument is precisely that because your argument is uncoupled from physical reality, that it is useless and meaningless in relation to physical reality! And empiricism (the *epistomology* in question here) is about nothing but physical reality!
Epistemologies can only be employed by a being that is seeking to gain knowledge.
All living beings are seeking to gain knowledge. That’s what they have sensory systems for.
In order to apply any epistemology, that being must be assumed to have qualities that can meaningfully utilize those epistemologies towards gaining knowledge.
Yes. That’s why I pointed out earlier that all living beings utilize empiricism! The qualities they have to meaningfully utilize it are sensory systems, input processing systems, and feedback systems. On the other hand, according to your philosophy, living things would all need to be theist philosophers!
One can even hold an ontological framework that logically contradicts the meaningfulness of their epistemology, and still utilize the epistemology just fine, whether they know their ontology contradicts the logical requirements of the epistemology they use or not.
Sure. Your ontological framework that spectacularly fails to underpin your epistemology is a great example.
The problem is, however, when the atheistic materialist lays claim that the epistemology supports an (atheistic materialism, no free will, no objective arbiter of truth) ontology that, if true, would invalidate the meaningfulness of the epistemology.
That is so blatant a misrepresentation and disregard of what people here have said, that I am seriously starting to doubt your intentions.
Empiricism supports an ontology that provides an objective arbiter of truth. It provides clear and objectively accessible meaning to the epistomology, in stark contrast to your ontology and epistemology. I have presented a clear argument and strong support for this arbiter. You have steadfastly avoided to address this argument, instead dismissing my comments out of hand as *non-sequiturs* and *confusion*.
The idea that “a material world” exists is a conception based on experience. What that experience is “of”, no one can know – plato’s cave. You cannot gain truth from the material world because you have no idea what – if anything – actually exists outside of your mind.
Which is why any rational arbiter of truth must lie within mind.
William J Murray,
Whose mind.
If not your mind, then the mind must exist in a place you cannot rationally prove even exists, since it is external to you.
WJM: You cannot gain truth from the material world because you have no idea what – if anything – actually exists outside of your mind.
Great. WJM is a solipsist (not that most people here, especially Mike Elizinga, haven’t suspected this for a long time, but it’s nice to finally have him say it outright). That pretty much makes any further discussion with him superfluous.
Well, the next question to a solipsist is whether or not he is willing to risk behaving as though an external universe – with all those physical laws and new knowledge that seem to come from some “hidden self” – does NOT really exist.
Can a solipsist risk putting the figment of his imagination called a loaded gun to the figment of his imagination called his head and pull the figment of his imagination called the trigger with the figment of his imagination called his finger? What if the world is real and external to his mind?
If WJM – who I now understand to be just barely discovering Philosophy 100; ie, he is not as mature as he wants us to believe – claims that one cannot tell the difference between a universe in his mind from one that exists externally, then what is his justification for NOT treating the universe as real and external?
If he believes the former, he becomes a parasite depending on those in a real world who are now obligated to prevent him from doing unnecessary harm to himself and others. The mere fact that he lives in a well-fed and well-protected society allows him to do this. He would not be allowed this luxury in a group of individuals whose very survival depended on everyone being in touch with and acutely attuned to reality.
This is how we know that people like WJM have not fledged yet.
Ugh, I did want to post this in the other thread
I believe Chardin invented theological evolution. Writing around 1930, he beat Micheal Denton to the fine tuning argument by two thirds of a century. Evolution, by its nature, builds increasing complexity.
His work was considered heretical By the Catholic Church.
petrushka,
The treatment of Chardin can not be simply equated with a rejection of theological evolution. Chardin proposed a radical rethinking of Catholic theology (for example, the Omega Point) that can not be easily accepted (although there is greater interest in reconsidering some of his theological ideas). However Chardin’s motivation to see the harmony between Science and Faith is something that the Church has recently – and publicly – thanked.
What should we call an objective, independent source of truth that is not of the material world?
That you automatically an intrinsically hold natural to equal material demonstrates the depth of your a priori materialism – probably one of the fundamental reasons you have such difficulty understanding what I say in the way I mean it.
I’m not a solipsist at all. Solipsists believe nothing exists outside of their mind. I believe there is an external world; I just admit – like Plato – that I have no means by which to directly know what it is. All I have is what my senses accumulate and what my mind interprets that as.
Unless you are claiming that you can directly experience the physical world without a sensory intermediary and mental interpretations thereof, you are as much a solipsist as I. The difference between you and I is that I do not confuse my mental and sensory interpretations with what might really exist “out there” in the raw. I accept my experiential limitations.
I’ve reiterated several times I cannot prove such things, and that I am not attempting to do so. I’m only pointing out the philosophical a prioris that are required for the application of any epistemology, whether they are admitted or not.
I haven’t claimed that everything you experience is generated by you. Why would I “engage” such an argument?
So basically you build your worldview or model exactly the way science does.
For some reason you like playing games with labels and terminology.
Even if an arbiter of truth existed in the outside world, we could only access it via sensory input and interpretation of mind. Whether the arbiter of truth is external and material or internal and mental, all we can know about it is, in the end, what lies in our mind.
Whether the actual arbiter of truth is objective in nature or not is irrelevant; we must apply any epistemology as if the arbiter of truth we employ is objective. There is simply no way to categorize information acquired by any investigatory process – even raw sensory input – without some primordial truth-discernment capacity that we believe applies to the world.
As we interact with others, we automatically consider them to be held by the same truths that apply to us, or else we would not argue and could not cooperate. The assumption of objectively true statements can be denied, but it still applies. We all assume, whether we admit it or not, that all of us are bound by certain fundamental truths, and we all expect each other to be able to, under normal circumstances, deliberately discern true statements from false.
We all hold each other to be formally bound to objective truths; we all interact as if such objective truths exist and can be deliberately discerned (or else why are we arguing?); yet some of us equivocate due to ideology.
My ideology supports the concept of formal, objective truths, and thus serves as proper warrant for my behavior when I act and debate as if such formal, objective truths exist. Atheistic materialism provides no such warrant.
Science is based on consensual-empiricism; my worldview is just based on my personal empirical tests and results. I don’t require consensus.
I think we got that. Good luck with that.