I Believe God Exists

[Mister Agenda]

You seem to have a list of pre-debunked labels in your arsenal, and if you wish to just slap the closest label that fits onto what I am arguing for in order to dismiss it, then you are just straw-manning my argument instead of addressing it directly.

At this point, you had not yet made an argument to address. I'm cotinuing to read the thread, I hope this isn't a pattern.

[Mister Agenda]

I am not convinced that we live in a material objective universe. For starters, I challenge any of you to prove that we do. What empirical evidence do you have that can prove for instance, that Nick Bostrom's Simulation Argument is conclusively false and we do in fact live in a material objective reality?]

I don't...which is why I'm a methodological naturalist rather than a materialist. It's possible that we believe in a universe that's not materialist, but in which we are currently unable to prove that it's not materialist; or a universe that actually materialist.

There is no proof. There is no empirical evidence that supports your belief in objective materialism if you are a Materialist, and if you are an Atheist because of your Materialism, that is a problem.

Have we taken the smallest step to establishing that ANYONE is an atheist because of their materialism? I know we have at least one self-proclaimed materialist around, maybe he or she can shed some light on this. 

The bottom line is thus: That we live in a Material Objective Universe is an unsupported assumption, no more supported than any other unsupported assumption. (such as a belief in the Christian creation myth)

That's an observation, not an assumption. Everything we observe appears to be material. It's an unsupported assumption that the case is actually otherwise. 

Materialism is not ultimately true.

How do you know that?

To disbelieve in all "Gods" based on "no proof", but at the same time believe that we live in a Material Objective Universe with "no proof", is a special kind of cognitive dissonance I cannot personal stomach when constructing my own world view. Maybe it is different for you all.

Until you establish that materialism is a cause of atheism rather than a result of it, this is just a strawman.

[Mister Agenda]

Proof for this assertion?


I have not made an assertion. What you quoted, is a negative position, which you being an Atheist should be very familiar with. Whoever is a Materialist is making the assertion that Materialism is true. I am simply skeptical of this claim, and am requesting proof. Evidence of any kind will suffice. I challenge you all to prove the positive claim you are making.

This is how you express skepticism: 'I am skeptical that materialism is the ultimate reality'. This is how you make an assertion: 'Materialism is not the ultimate reality'. This is also an assertion: There is no God. When you catch an atheist making that claim, it's cricket to ask him or her to back it up.

I couldn't agree more! There is no good reason to believe in Materialism, and yet most Atheists do, and then feel intellectual superior to Theists who believe in a God for no good reason. Insanity! Delusional indeed! 

'Most atheists do' is an example of an assertion you should be able to back up if you're going to make it.

And as for why Atheists can demand proof from Theists all day everyday and then when asked for proof of their own world view think that they are somehow exempt from the Burden of Proof, also Special Pleading, also Logical Fallacy.

I bet the atheists who do that are cautious about what they assert. You should try that.

[Berati]

You are the first to finally admit that it is an assumption! Thank you very much for your intellectual honesty, it is truly commendable considering the circumstances!

This is wrong. The other posters have all pretty much said that no one can be 100.000% certain about anything. This however, is no excuse for you to insert whatever crazy belief you have. Theists constantly try to capitalize on the fact that science never claims 100% certainty to insert their own beliefs as being on a 50/50 par with science... you are trying to pull the same trick with immaterialism and it's not working.

"i feel therefore it's real" yes, the experience is absolutely real. This catchy phrase however does not justify materialism in any way.

The problem is of course that it is not the only logical assumption you can make.

THANK YOU BABY JESUS!!! ding ding ding ding ding!! :new_birthday:
When referring to "I think therefore I am" you said " From there my only real next logical move is solipsism" and now you admit that you were wrong and that there are other logical assumptions. (In fact more logical than solipsism)
Materialism is in fact far far more logical than immaterialism. Why? La Dolce Vita already pointed this out to you as follows:

You do admit it "appears that way". That is all that count. If it appears a certain way then that's the most logical position to have. You need good reasons to deny something that clearly appears a certain way, and you do not.

Let me repeat what I've proven and that you continue to deny in vain... You have the burden of proof.  Just accept it and move on.

I don't assume that nothing is real. I know that I am real. I know that experience is real. I know that information is real. (all of which are immaterial) Therefore, I do not jump off the cliff. The experience will be real regardless.

Let's say me and this person are existing in "the matrix" and we both know it. We know that to assume that we exist in a Material Objective Universe would be incorrect. We both know that we are actually experiencing an "illusion" created by the information being sent to our consciousnesses through the matrix, and guess what....

I STILL COULD NOT CONVINCE HIM TO JUMP!!

And I wouldn't try, because I wouldn't jump either! This false dichotomy you guys are setting up is ridiculous. If Materialism is false, that does not automatically mean that we exist in wacky crazy fun wonderland where we can just jump off of cliffs and buildings and the laws and rules of reality that we have always experienced suddenly seise to do what they do.

And now you have now retreated so far from your belief that you admit that no matter what, you will behave and treat the world around you exactly as if it were all materially real.

Are you familiar with Occam's Razor? If so, then why introduce a completely unprovable, unfalsifiable, immaterial world that you now admit is incapable of changing anything about the way you live.

[Mister Agenda]

I am not saying "Prove that God doesn't exist." because I understand that would be silly. What I am saying is "Prove that Materialism is true." Because I understand that what would make God an impossibility in the mind of an Atheist would be if Materialism were true. You are an Atheist because you have a world view that is not compatible with the existence of God, I am challenging your world view, which is Materialism, the positive assertion about reality that would negate the possibility of any kind of God.

The problem is the difficulty of finding an atheist who asserts that, despite your perception that the majority of atheists are materialists. Maybe your perception is incorrect? My guess is that you've mistaken methodological naturalism for materialism in many of the atheists you've conversed with.

I, on the other hand, am not accepting the assertion that we live in a material objective reality. I am remaining skeptical about your assertion of Materialism, and demanding proof of that at the onset. Which you have yet to attempt in any way.

Probably because the person you're talking to is not a materialist.

If Materialism is true, in your own words that means that "all things are composed of matter - that there is nothing that exists besides physical things". Consciousness is non-physical, therefore consciousness cannot exist if materialism is true.

If materialism is true, consciousness is fundamentally physical. One way to easily prove materialism false would be to demonstrate a disembodied consciousness that does not rely on matter or energy as a substrate.

The closest you've come to attempting to provide anything resembling evidence or proof for your positive claim about reality was:

If you cannot provide any proof for your world view, what you can at least do is admit that it is an unsupported assumption.

Whose positive claim about reality?

[Mister Agenda]

I propose that to have a position about the existence of God (meaning to not be an agnostic), is to have a concern and a philosophy about what may or may not be the root cause of our collected experience called existence. Correct me if I am wrong, but you truly had no concern, you'd be an Agnostic Nihilist instead of an Atheist Nihilist.

I know you know that atheists can be agnostic. Moral Nihilist's concern can be easily summarized: a desire not to have inadequately justified beliefs. No committment to materialism required.

Yes but let's not forget these facts:
1) Scientific knowledge has not been a steady build, progress has instead been made through paradigm shifts.

Sure.

2) It used to be scientific suicide to believe the earth was not flat, and then that the earth was not at the center of the universe, and then that atoms actually existed, and then that Newtonian Physics was false, and now that Materialism is false.

This simply isn't true. It was literally RELIGIOUS suicide to contend with the Church on these matters. Scientists have a good record of not putting people to the torch for having unorthodox views. What's 'scientific suicide'? Loss of tenure or respect? Newtonian physics is not false, it merely doesn't apply to all circumstances. Finding that the earth is an oblate spheroid doesn't mean that the idea that it is round was false, merely that it wasn't accurate as it could be, while still being MUCH more accurate than the flat earth notion (which is still not completely false from a local point of view).

I believe you are right but only if you are referring to specific religious dogmatisms and limited conceptions of God. Surely we will grow out of these superstitious and fearful clingings to religion. But I do not believe spirituality itself is going anywhere. The only conceivable scenerio in which all spirituality and belief in afterlife and God go entirely extinct is the scenerio in which Materialism triumphs as the only possible solution, in which case all of those things would be impossible. That is precisely why I am so interested in discovering at least some tiny sliver of proof or at least one piece of evidence for this positive assertion about reality, as it's truth would indeed extinguish my own belief.

Do you really think it's an honest search for truth to condition giving up your faith on proof of something you know can't be proven either way?

I, like anyone else, do not wish to be wandering around with a world view that is ultimately false.

The method most of us have chosen to accomplish that is to withold belief from propositions that haven't been adequately supported. What's your method?

I am very willing to provide evidence for my own beliefs about the nature of reality, but I am intentionally holding out until after it becomes painfully clear that Materialists are not willing to provide even a sliver of evidence for theirs.

Do you have any conception of how many people have promised us evidence once they're satisfied some arbitrary condition has been met? Guess how many have delivered. The only evidence for materialism is that everything observable is material on every level that can be verifiably experienced. What other evidence could there be?

[Mister Agenda]

Okay, so can we all admit that proof that we exist in a Material Objective Universe is impossible?

Can we all admit that evidence that we exist in a Material Objective Universe is also impossible?

Can we all admit that Materialism is nothing more than an unsupported unjustified assumption?

If yes, great, I may proceed with the argument....

If not, then please present the evidence for your positive assertion.

One of these things is not like the others. The evidence for the material world is literally the sum of all evidence it is possible to have for anything. You can legitimately question whether it actually refers to anything real. You can't legitimately reject it as 'not evidence at all'. Our experience of a material world that others can confirm experiencing too is sufficient justification for accepting it as (approximately) real, as all alternative possibilities not only lack evidence entirely, they make the very idea of evidence useless.

[Mr.Obvious]

Mister Agenda,

You've inspired me to re-skim the entire conversation.

And I think I'm right in concluding from reading all of those entries that OP is selectively blind to what we type.

La Dolce Vita and some others seem inclined to think him a troll. That may very well be. (I am not convinced of that.) But even if he's not, I fear he will not understand what it is exactly we are arguing.

Many of us have been presenting the same points but under different terms and different emphasis', but basically the same points. One may call their point of view 'methodological naturalism', the other 'methodological materialism', the other indicate that he or she is not making a positive claim that the world is (only) materialistic, and the other may indicate that science is limited to observable phenomenon. Some point out his standard of proof would make his own claim, even if proven by 'limited proof', equally invalid and open to criticism as materialism is in his own mind, others may point to the fact that 'ultimate knowledge' is a phallacy. Some may point out he's putting a god on top of a system without it adding anything of value, others' refer to Ockham's razor. Some will say that he has the burden of proof, others will say it's up to him to provide evidence and others will point out that saying that the world is immaterialist in nature is a positive claim that must be established through measurements. One might point out that damage to the brain can change the mind, the other may say that a mind cannot exist without the brain, the other that the mind is a product of the brain...

These are all slightly different approaches, but most of us are pointing out the same flaws in his ideas.

We can point out his non-sequiters, his fallacies and his misinterpretations, but I fear it will be to no avail.

When he reads something that makes sense and destroys his argument he either willfully or unwillingly ignores it or misinterprets it or tries to strawman it. He may not be a religious fanatic or an extremist of any kind. But he does have one thing in common with with religious zealots beside the belief in a 'god': he can't accept the idea of being wrong. Ergo he never will see it.

I applaud your persistance in trying to teach him the error of his logic. I admire the clarity in your arguments and the accompagnying eloquence. If in the future, he responds to something I said in the past, or says something new that hasn't already been rebuked in this conversation, I probably will be there to point it out too. It's hard to let stupidity go unanswered, and I admire your zeal in providing a logical answer. But I just hope you understand, this man is most likely not open to change his mind because he's not open to see anything wrong in his arguments.

That being said: Verbally kick his ass.

Best of luck.

[Mister Agenda]

http://arxiv.org/abs/1206.6578

There ya go. Now what? 

Above is a link to a Peer Reviewed Scientific Paper that conclusively shows that Materialism is a false assumption about the reality we exist in. Conclusively.

Uh, no, it doesn't. Do you even know what materialism is? Do you think it literally means everything is made of conventional matter? If I thought QM was a problem for materialism, I'd rank it as false, too. You're proposing that reality is fundamentally mental, a form of idealism. You're not going to get there through physics.

From the abstract of the Peer Reviewed Paper:

"No Naive Realistic picture is compatible with our results because whether a quantum shows particle- or wave-like behavior depends on a causally disconnected choice."

Good thing materialsim isn't a synonym for 'naive realism' then, eh?

The results of quantum eraser experiments conclusively show that the assumption of Materialism is false. I believe I have met your criteria, have I not?

You don't even meet your own criteria. By the standards YOU've laid out, that study can't be considered evidence of anything, because you can't know you're not a brain in a jar. You don't get to reject any possible basis of evidence and then claim the evidence is on your side. Even if the study meant what you think it does. Solipsism, for the lose.

You know that you are conscious. Consciousness is non-physical and yet you have gained this knowledge. You know that you have experience. Experience is non-physical and yet you can know this. God as I define it is the source and sum of all consciousness, and is therefore knowable in the exact same way.

That consciousness and experience are non-physical are assumptions you are making. According to materialism, these are emergent properties of matter, that is, you could say, of physics. But if your proposition was granted, we can only know these things of ourselves, for any other entity we must rely on evidence, and if we are brains in jars, that evidence is false. Solipsism loses again.

A character in a Skyrim could do experiments to discover whether or not he exists in a Material Objective Universe. If he devised a device that let him look far into the distance, and noticed that trees only seemed to pop into existence when we walked close enough to observe them, he would have good reason to believe that he does not exist in a Material Objective Reality. In a Material Universe, trees don't care if there is an observer present or not, they don't pop into existence depending on the actions of an observer. If he somehow noticed that his reality was observer/consciousness dependent and observer/consciousness relative vs observer/consciousness independent, and if he could devise an experiment that proved this, he will have effectively disproved the assumption that the reality he exists in is an Objective Material Universe.

If your hypothetical Skyrim character did that, he would have proven he lives in some sort of simulation, but he will be completely unable to prove that the simulation itself does not exist in a material universe.

I have provided peer reviewed evidence that disproves your positive claim, whereas you have provided nothing but Apologetics.

That we live in a computer simulation is a possibilty that I readily concede, I've often considered it. If it turns out to be true, it still doesn't imply God. It implies advanced technology and someone capable of pressing the right buttons to initiate the simulation in which we find ourselves. The leap from 'maybe we're in a simulation' to 'the simulator is a cosmic being worthy of worship' when it could as easily be dweeb with a super-advanced alien Gamestation is not justified.

[Casparov]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NQLypwgqefc

Brain, in which all mind activities occurred, is material. It therefore exists independent of mind. It has a weight and a mass that is measurable.

Head injuries that cause the sufferer to act differently and think differently are well documented.   As are the effects of hormones and chemicals on the thinking process.   If your mind were immaterial, then it wouldn't be affected if I were to inject you with one ampoule of adrenaline.

If the mind doesn't rely on the brain then why do we lose certain faculties when we damage parts of our brain?

To begin with, in order to claim that the brain produces mind, you will need to first demonstrate that the brain can exist as an objective external material object independent of mind. We are back to proving Materialism.

How do you know brains exist? They have to appear as images and sensations in your mind just like everything else. Even if you remove your own brain and place in front of you so you can perceive it, it is still just qualia, just a perception in your mind. Until you can prove that materialism is true, you cannot prove that my mind is the result of something that appears in my mind. (a brain)

But now just for kicks and giggles, for a moment I will grant your assumption of materialism and see what happens. The claim is that "because when you alter the brain, the abilities of the consciousness are altered, this proves that consciousness is a product of the brain."

So I will give you an analogy: The material object that is the brain, will be represented by a material object DVD. The immaterial consciousness, will be represented by the immaterial meaning and message conveyed by the movie that plays on the DVD.

Now then, if we scratch the DVD, we see that the meaning and message are no longer conveyed properly. THIS THEN PROVES THAT THE MEANING AND THE MESSAGE OF THE MOVIE IS A PRODUCT OF THE DVD. Right? Just like altering a brain alters the consciousness?

No. The immaterial meaning and message of the movie remain undamaged, but the ability to be conveyed through this material object that has been damaged, has also been damaged. Load the same movie onto a different DVD and behold the meaning and message are there. This is because the meaning and message of the movie are immaterial, they are INFORMATION which cannot be destroyed just because you destroy the material object that is conveying the information.

If you have a program that runs on a computer, if you cut the computer in half the program will not longer run properly, but this is not proof that the computer and the program are the same thing!!! (unless of course you are a materialist  )

Now lets not forget the fact that before you can claim that "external material objects and their interactions" can produce mind, you must first be able to prove that they exist independent of mind. Materialism must first be proven to be true. And that cannot be done. Brains always appear in a mind. No brain has ever been discovered existing outside of a mind. Your own mind cannot be doubted and you know exists with absolute certainty.

[aileron]

Oh, goodie... We're arguing brain in a jar.  Yawn. 

[Casparov]

You do admit it "appears that way". That is all that count. If it appears a certain way then that's the most logical position to have. You need good reasons to deny something that clearly appears a certain way, and you do not.

Naive Realism : Also know as direct realism or common sense realism, is a philosophy of mind rooted in a theory of perception that claims that the senses provide us with direct awareness of the external world. In contrast, some forms of Idealism no world exists apart from mind-dependent ideas and some forms of skepticism say we cannot trust our senses.

The realist view is that we perceive objects as they really are. They are composed of matter, they occupy space and have properties such as size, shape, texture, smell, taste, and colour, that are perceived correctly. Objects obey the laws of physics and retain all their properties whether or not there is anyone to observe them.

The naïve realist theory may be characterized as the acceptance of the following five beliefs:

1) There exists a world of material objects.
2) Some statements about these objects can be known to be true through sense-experience.
3) These objects exist not only when they are being perceived but also when they are not perceived. The objects of perception are largely perception-independent.
4) These objects are also able to retain properties of the types we perceive them as having, even when they are not being perceived. Their properties are perception-independent.
5) By means of our senses, we perceive the world directly, and pretty much as it is. In the main, our claims to have knowledge of it are justified."

"Most working scientists hold fast to the concept of 'realism' - a viewpoint according to which an external reality exists independent of observation. But quantum physics has shattered some of our cornerstone beliefs... Our result suggests that giving up the concept of locality is not sufficient to be consistent with quantum experiments, unless certain intuitive features of realism are abandoned." from http://arxiv.org/abs/0704.2529

"The counterintuitive features of quantum physics challenge many common-sense assumptions....  No naive realistic picture is compatible with our results because whether a quantum could be seen as showing particle- or wave-like behavior would depend on a causally disconnected choice. It is therefore suggestive to abandon such pictures altogether." - from
http://arxiv.org/abs/1206.6578

Trying to knock a co-experienced reality needs evidence, not the other way around.

Which is why i keep provided evidence and you keep providing none.

[Hijiri Byakuren]

No brain has ever been discovered existing outside of a mind. Your own mind cannot be doubted and you know exists with absolute certainty.

[Mister Agenda]

This is not what is occurring with respect to Materialism however. Materialism is not the most likely explanation. Nick Bostrom has argued that it is far more likely that we live in a simulated reality using pure statistical analysis.

A simulation is not immaterial.

It is not the case that there is a mountain of undeniable evidence that supports the assumption of Materialism and all other possible alternatives to Materialism are highly unlikely imaginative fantasies.... if that is how you perceive it than you are grandly mistaken and quite ignorant of the evidence and arguments that oppose Materialism.

What would you think of someone who says you're ignorant but refuses to provide the information of which they claim you're ignorant?

I am not denying that Materialism has been a working model for a very long time. That is not contested. What I am denying is that it is an unquestionable truth. (which quite a lot of Atheists seem to mistakenly believe as this thread should demonstrate)

Not buying your assertions that you've got evidence against or disproved materialism is not the same thing as asserting materialism is true. There seems to have been rather a dearth of that. If it's unquestionable, it's not because it's dogma, it's because in certain senses, the idea of questioning ceases to make sense if materialism is rejected. How do you question when the basis for making sense of questions is removed?

Materialism is at base, a bare assumption. Philosophically it is unjustifiable. No man can produce a single piece of evidence to support it and certainly no proof. But beyond that, there exists direct evidence that disproves it as a theory about reality.

It's a conclusion, based on experience. Calling it an assumption over and over won't magically make it one (except perhaps, if materialism is false, then calling something, something else over and over again might work). Philosophy uses axioms all the time. 'Reality is real' is a pretty justifiable axiom, given that any alternative axiom that supposes reality isn't real is useless and fruitless. In general, something directly experienced is considered a pretty good reason to accept something as an axiom in philosophy.

What I am arguing is more like arguing that because when a ship arrives on the horizon from far out at sea, it gradually appears  top to bottom vs appearing all at once, a sign that the earth is a sphere and not flat, even though flat earth theory was quite a good model and widely accepted for a very very long time.

No, you seem to be arguing 'suppose that were the case'. It would be irrational to reach the conclusion ahead of the observations that support it. If our universe is a simulation, that in no way implies panentheism. It implies programmers, computers, and all the people who get you there over the history of a species. If I understand AITM correctly, it implies panotheism: the creation is greater than the creators.

Information is not material, and reality is ultimately information based, therefore reality is not material. This can be assumed yes, and it is also possible to be proven.

Yes, it could be proven: All you need is an example of information that doesn't depend on matter, energy, space, or time.

The Atheist has no burden of proof when it comes to the non-existence of any particular God he disbelieves in. No Atheist is required to prove that God does not exist, this is true.

Conversely, one could be an agnostic theist, admit that they can't prove God exists and fall back on that's just what they believe, but we rarely run into those.

But if a person is an Atheist because they are a Materialist and believes that we live in a material objective universe that does not require any God, then that Atheist is required to prove his positive claim about reality. Atheism is his negative position, Materialism is his positive position. He is required to justify his positive assertion.

You haven't established that ANYONE is an atheist because they are a materialist. There's a whole thread of deconversion stories around here somewhere, I don't recall any of them going: 'Once i accepted materialism as true, I could no longer believe in God'.

When Flat Earth Theory was proven false, was all of the testable and consistent proof that was made within it's framework suddenly disproven with it? No. Absolutely and emphatically not. If you want to survey land you are farming you still use Flat Earth Theory. All of the proofs made within it's framework still holds because flat earth theory was an appoximation that is still accurate to this day for short distances.

Why would you think this is something of which we're unaware?

When Einstein proved that Newton's Physics was ultimately false, did all of the testable and consistent proof that was made within it's framework suddenly disproven? No. Just because we have Quantum Mechanics and Relativity Theory now doesn't mean that knocking billiards balls into other billiards balls doesn't cause a reaction that Newton proved within his framework. An apple still falls at the same rate, even though Newtonian Physics isn't ultimately correct. It was an approximation that is still accurate at certain sizes and speeds.

Again, why do you think we're unaware of this, and how do you think it supports your contention that materialism is false? Because other things have been found to not be completely true before, therefore materialism will be, too? Materialism isn't the kind of thing that can be mostly true. If there's a single exception, it's completely false. That's why our inability to find a single exception is so telling.

Similarly, Materialism is a assumption, a model that works to a degree because it is an approximation.

This is a claim that you have failed to support.

The problem is when people believe it to be an unquestionable truth.

You have both failed to demonstrate that your perception that a lot of atheists are these people is accurate OR what the problem would be if they were. It's only a problem if materialism is false, not really a problem if materialism just might not be true, which everyone here seems to agree could be the case.

You seem to be finally admitting that Materialism is an unjustified assumption, which i commend. Thank you. But you immediately and with the same breath have to throw in the "but you can't prove yours either!"  And that's okay.

You keep saying things like this and I keep being unable to find the things that other people have said that could justifiably lead you to this conclusion.

If it can be proven that information is the base of reality, then it will be proven that reality is ultimately immaterial, and the perceived materiality is an illusion produced by our experience of it, an approximation, a guess, an assumption.

To be ultimately immaterial, information would have to be independent of matter, energy, time, and space, in any universe.

I believe that information as the base reality would prove that we live in an immaterial universe rather than just assume it as so.

Showing that information is immaterial would go a long way towards establishing that an immaterial universe is possible.

The God I am arguing for unfolds from a correct understanding of reality. I do not first postulate a God, and then find reasons to justify it's existence. I first scrutinize reality, and upon discovering it's nature, if in the end a God seems a reasonable conclusion, or at the very least a more likely conclusion that not, then I will accept that "God" exists.

A God? Why not a million? Why not an impersonal number generator that kicks out the information for a universe every trillion cubed burps? Why not a material universe like ours, only real, in which all other universes are but simulations?

[Mister Agenda]

Duly noted. If you make zero positive claims about reality, you are called a Nihilist, and you are therefore impossible to debate with.

Um, that is NOT the definition of nihilism. Nihilism concerning reality is an assertion about reality (that it's meaningless and valueless) which can certainly be debated. Limiting your claims to what you can support is what, scientific rationalism? I'd love to see the argument for making claims you can't support.

I commend you for the commitment to never being wrong by remaining silent. This is a good (but lazy and some may say cowardly) strategy, but as you have eliminated the possibility of being wrong you have at the same time eliminated the possibility of being right.

It's really inconvenient when real people don't hold the views you've assigned to them in your fantasies, isn't it?

You can't win until you accept a positive position. If you choose to not take any position about the nature of reality, you don't win, you fore-fit, and therefore are not part of the conversation.

Guess what? You don't get to decide who is in or out of the conversation.

Incorrect. I choose to start building my world view with what I can know with certainty. Therefore my world view starts with "I exist" as I cannot possibly doubt this, and it is the only thing I know with absolute certainty. From there I move forward paying careful attention to any and all assumptions that I make.

Really? It must have been great to have been a blank slate when you started 'building your world view'.

When presented with the idea that I live in a Material Objective Universe, I have accurately identified this as an assumption, and having found no evidence to support it, have therefore concluded that it is an unjustifiable assumption.

You've assumed you've identified accurately.

This is how I believe all World Views should be built, from the ground up, but sadly most people just go to the World View Buffet and pick out a ready-made World View that fits with their preconceptions and hold on for dear life. A pre-made World View with assumptions effectively hidden deep within for convenience.

Speaking of unjustifed assumptions....