Theism vs. Atheism

Resolved: Theism is epistemicly superior to Atheism. Request: If you would be so kind as to post only your case, we can use the second round for direct refutation and proceed to full debate in the final 2 rounds. If you'd rather debate another way, that's fine too. Rule: Evidence found via research must be sourced, so that the context of that evidence may be examined. If a piece of evidence is not sourced by the voting period, it shall be assumed that the evidence was false Note: I will be denoting Consciousness as C and deity as D for emphasis. You may do the same or otherwise as you see fit. Definitions: Theism: belief in a D. Atheism: The belief that no deity exists Diety: A conscious , non-human entity, who's complexity exceeds that of any human by many orders of magnitude, and has some relation with the planet Earth. Epistemicly superior: More likely to be objective fact. Value: Knowledge In philosophy, or religion for that matter, the goal is the acquisition of objective facts regarding all matters yet unanswered by science, and the identification of questions which lead us to those facts. One of these two sides is advocating an objective fact, which, in a philosophical paradigm, ought to be known. Criterion: Humility Humans typically have a superior attitude towards children, animals, and inanimate objects. Often, they have this attitude toward other adults as well, even other cultures. The belief that we have some distinction above the rest of universal matter makes us unwilling to imagine, and therefore incapable of knowing, an entity far greater than ourselves. 2. We humans are conscious. We have a subjective awareness, which only we can access. Our C is our most basic knowledge. We know that we are aware, and if "we are aware" holds true, then it is quite certain that "we are". Furthermore, I am, and I am in a bodily way that occupies certain points in space and time. Science knows a great deal about the workings of the human body, all processes necessary for life. The manners in which stimuli trigger pathways which cause bodily action are well-documented. Moreover, they are necessary and sufficient for life. The body ought to work with or without any sort of soul, spirit, essence, or C. And yet every living human, and many living beings have C. C is, therefore, an epiphenomenon. Science cannot tell us what it is, how it arises, why it exists. I'm sure you'll agree that mentally deficient persons have C; animals do as well. Parrot IQs are in the 35-49 range. A human with such an IQ can learn basic life skills, attain some supervised employment, and recognize that they are a distinct entity which exists, and may not exist at some future time.(1) Persons with IQs below 30 still have C, and they are less intelligent that parrots. So parrots definitely have C. There is no distinction between parrots and Avis as a whole to suggest that all birds have C, down to the hummingbird. If we trace the phylogenetic roots of either of those animals, we come to hardly macroscopic beings. Consider C. elegans, a species of nematode. Like all eukaryotic organisms, C. elgans starts as a small cluster of stem cells which divide and differentiate into new cell types. As a C. elegans develops, scientists can identify the eventual location and cell type of any of those 1,000 stem cells. It still has a brain; it senses and makes decisions to ensure its survival. It must have C. C. elegans' ancestors are unicellular. They lack nervous tissue, so they must lack C. Right? No, not at all. Unicellular amoebas sense and respond to their environment. They are similarly capable to C. elegans at finding sustenance and prolonging life. Though they lack neuronal signalling, autocrine signalling does the same job. The human brain is not the sole locus of C, nor is the ganglia, or even a pair of neurons. The precondition for C is signalling. It is important to note that signalling is not limited to the expression and understanding of concepts understood by humans. The amoeba is essentially a molecular machine, and the nature of its chemical messages is lightyears from the human understanding of a message. The process of signaling is simple. A signal (some collection of matter or energy) moves from entity A to Entity B, causing some change in the state-over-time of Entity B. You shoot a tree; that's a signal. You hear thunderous vibrations from the atmosphere; that's a signal. A meteor strikes Earth; that's a signal. (I will now refer to signalling with an S) It is evident that C exists when, and because, S occurs. If S does not occur, C cannot be. As living beings, S occurs at unfathomable rates; when we sleep, it slows. S occurs until we die. The dead have no C. While S occurred, C existed. When S ceased, C ceased. C and S are nearly one and the same; but they are, in a way, distinct. S is observable; the firing of a neuron and the subsequent neural activity can be externally observed. C is experienced by the subject, but C cannot be externally observed. This is a serious epistemic problem. If another celestial body collides with Earth, S can be easily observed. C will not be externally observed. Without observing C, many observers will say that C does not exist. When most observers looked at you or I, they would gladly admit that we have C. They cannot observe that C, so they infer it from the apparent S keeping us alive. This distinction arises because the firing of a neuron is a very familiar process, and a meteor strike is unfamiliar. This isn't a logical interpretation; the logic ought to apply to both cases equally. C exists when S occurs. S has occurred so C must exist. That C corresponds to some spatial domain including both bodies. You may not be particularly convinced that at astronomical event is alike to a conscious thought; there are more familiar methods of signaling. We use our vocal chords to create vibrations in the air which, in turn, vibrate the ear drums of others. They cause responses in the others, often complex ones. Not only has S occurred, but S has occurred such that it is meaningful to an observer. If the collision causing C is less likely than the nerve cell causing C, speech must be more likely to cause C by the same rationale. Signalling among humans causes some C to exist, just like internal signaling causes our Cs to exist. The universe is incomprehensibly vast. Our galaxy, one of 200 billion the universe contains, has ~10 trillion planets; the neurons in a human being number less than a hundred billion.(2) These planets, not to mention the myriad other types of celestial bodies, exist in every imaginable size, shape, and composition. They fly through space much faster than any human vehicle could. They collide; they combine, break apart, change momentum and direction. Bursts of gamma rays shoot across the universe at the speed of light, carrying more energy than the sun will ever produce, and vaporizing everything in their path. Each of these is a signal, no less complex, and far more numerous than a neuronal action potentials in the human brain. As the amoeba's slow, occasional signals cause a meager C, and our quick, numerous signals cause a modest but expansive C, the universes speed-of-light, infinite signals cause a C that is nothing short of a D I eagerly await your reply. 1. http://www.paulcooijmans.com... 2. http://scienceblogs.com...