Atheism

All words. It's all words. And words do not prove anything. Words document thought and promote communication. What is documented and what is communicated, Might or might not represent reality. So here is a documented assemblage of my thoughts which I will attempt to communicate to my opponent. "The Law of Non-Contradiction". A god exists and a god doesn't exist. This is a contradiction because the statement attempts to be both positively and negatively conclusive. A god might exist and a god might not exist. The inclusion of the word might would now seem to render the statement non-contradictory. Introducing the word "might" now conveys a logical uncertainty to the statement rather than a conclusive certainty. But once again this is all word play. Because we can easily present conclusive statements together in a non-contradictory fashion. I will eat my breakfast and I won't eat my breakfast, This might appear to be a contradictory statement but of course there will obviously be a perceivable outcome. We can therefore pre-determine that in this instance the will be a conclusive certainty. That is to say I will either eat my breakfast or I won't eat my breakfast. Contradiction is as contradiction does and I suppose also non-contradiction is as non-contradiction does and I would therefore propose that contradiction and non-contradiction do not or cannot conform to a given law or principle. "Rational Justification". We can assume that we are rational and we can assume that we are justified. We can also assume that any justification that we might attempt to apply is rationally applied. But what sets the benchmark? Any decision we make is as individual as every other thought we might have. Collectivity is only an agreement between individuals and certainly does not increase the certainty of any thought or decision. Ultimately we are limited by our own physiology, That is to say the reality of individual bodily function. Whether that be the function of conceptual thought or the function of going to the bathroom. Conceptual thoughts are individual and therefore variable and so by association justification and rationality are similarly variable. The infant and the milk. We acquire information in two ways, Physiological inheritance or sensory conditioning. The infant regards neither milk nor non-milk. Milk or not comes later as brain acquired and brain stored imagery. Survival is instinctive, If not then there has been a disfunction in the transfer of inherent information. The man in the car. The man in the car assumes that the brake will slow and stop the car. He assumes this because that is the purpose of the brake and the normal function of the brake. If the braking mechanism malfunctions then this is simply because of a fault in the braking mechanism. The brake should work but the brake might not work, Most of us have the ability and acquired knowledge to assume both outcomes. Our primary assumption that the brake will work is not based on belief but simply because the brake usually does work. The brake could have worked but the brake didn't work, There is nothing contradictory or non-contradictory or irrational about this statement. Pink Unicorns. Wishful thinkers tend not to assert. And there may well be 501, 043 pink flying unicorns on a planet in the next galaxy. But just as we can neither prove nor disprove the existence of a god we can also neither prove nor disprove the existence of 501. 034 pink flying unicorns. Imagination is one thing and perception is another and of course it must be pointed out that perception is just as bound in our physiology as is imagination. Therefore what we might imagine or what we might perceive are neither necessarily rationally justifiable. Something imperceptible cannot be proved to exist simply because we want to prove it's existence and simply because we say it must exist, No matter how cleverly we believe we are able to string words together. This approach to theism has been employed many times throughout the years and has achieved very little other than a continuation of the usual discourse. They are so ultimately clever, Yet the men in the clouds still hide. Words alone cannot rationally justify this behaviour.