Announcement

Collapse

Apologetics 301 Guidelines

If you think this is the area where you tell everyone you are sorry for eating their lunch out of the fridge, it probably isn't the place for you


This forum is open discussion between atheists and all theists to defend and debate their views on religion or non-religion. Please respect that this is a Christian-owned forum and refrain from gratuitous blasphemy. VERY wide leeway is given in range of expression and allowable behavior as compared to other areas of the forum, and moderation is not overly involved unless necessary. Please keep this in mind. Atheists who wish to interact with theists in a way that does not seek to undermine theistic faith may participate in the World Religions Department. Non-debate question and answers and mild and less confrontational discussions can take place in General Theistics.


Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

The 'best' arguments for atheism and Christianity

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • If we premises something which does not exist to not exist, can such a premise be shown to be absurd?
    . . . the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; . . . -- Romans 1:16 KJV

    . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 KJV

    Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1 KJV

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
      "a proposition is possible just in case it is true in some possible worlds, and it is contingent just in case it is true in some but not all possible worlds."

      The proposition is contingent. The world where you don't exist, is contingent on you not existing (e.g. your parents never met) - and the world where you do exist is contingent on you being born. That is not even close to what you have been saying. contingent in this manner means simply "dependent on"

      In a world where God did not create the universe, it is contingent on God not creating the universe. In the world where the universe exists, it is contingent on God creating the universe. In no sense does that make God contingent on anything or his will contingent on anything (other than himself) The only thing contingent is the universe. On God. The universe is "the proposition"
      Contingent can mean dependent upon, although this is almost always in combination with on, which I have not used. In the philosophical/metaphysical sense (which as said is the one I use) it means may or may not exist. The difference between the two is explained here: http://wikidiff.com/dependent/contingent. A quote from another website (http://www.philosophyofreligion.info...m-contingency/) shows (again) that I’m not making this up:

      Something is “necessary” if it could not possibly have failed to exist. The laws of mathematics are often thought to be necessary. It is plausible to say that mathematical truths such as two and two making four hold irrespective of the way that the world is. Even if the world were radically different, it seems, two and two would still make four. God, too, is often thought to be a necessary being, i.e. a being that logically could not have failed to exist.
      Something is “contingent” if it is not necessary, i.e. if it could have failed to exist.



      Btw I’m still waiting for your answer: do you still maintain that God who in a possible world wills and decides to create a universe is exactly the same as God who in some other possible world does not will to create?

      Comment


      • Originally posted by crepuscule View Post
        Contingent can mean dependent upon, although this is almost always in combination with on, which I have not used. In the philosophical/metaphysical sense (which as said is the one I use) it means may or may not exist. The difference between the two is explained here: http://wikidiff.com/dependent/contingent. A quote from another website (http://www.philosophyofreligion.info...m-contingency/) shows (again) that I’m not making this up:

        Something is “necessary” if it could not possibly have failed to exist. The laws of mathematics are often thought to be necessary. It is plausible to say that mathematical truths such as two and two making four hold irrespective of the way that the world is. Even if the world were radically different, it seems, two and two would still make four. God, too, is often thought to be a necessary being, i.e. a being that logically could not have failed to exist.
        Something is “contingent” if it is not necessary, i.e. if it could have failed to exist.



        Btw I’m still waiting for your answer: do you still maintain that God who in a possible world wills and decides to create a universe is exactly the same as God who in some other possible world does not will to create?
        Well crep, I have learned long ago not to waste my time on people who are willfully ignorant to the point that they will never understand how wrong they are. You seem to suffer from what is known as Dunning-Kruger syndrome. So rather than continue to waste your time and mine, I will just leave it at this:

        1. The quote in your very own post disagrees with you.

        2. Not one person in this thread thinks your "argument" makes a lick of sense, nor has it convinced even one person to become an atheist. So good luck with that "best argument" and let me know how it works out for you.

        Last edited by Sparko; 07-25-2017, 01:32 PM.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
          Yet if she DID exist and could grant wishes, then she would be real dumbass. You would then have to come up with a reason why she is not fictional. Perhaps Collodi met her and decided to write a fairy tale about her. Perhaps she ported over from another universe. etc. You don't deny reality because you believe she is fictional. You adjust your beliefs to incorporate reality.

          You on the other hand predetermine what you will accept as reality and then toss away any evidence that proves you wrong.
          Sparko, you can not argue with a guy who assumes the answer before you even start.
          Micah 6:8 He has told you, O man, what is good; and what does the LORD require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
            Yet if she DID exist and could grant wishes, then she would be real dumbass. You would then have to come up with a reason why she is not fictional. Perhaps Collodi met her and decided to write a fairy tale about her. Perhaps she ported over from another universe. etc. You don't deny reality because you believe she is fictional. You adjust your beliefs to incorporate reality.
            You’ve got it back-to-front. If a fictional figure like the Blue Fairy (or God) performs a “miracle” you would look for a natural explanation, not declare that the fictional figure must be real. Only the most gullible dumbass would do this.

            You on the other hand predetermine what you will accept as reality and then toss away any evidence that proves you wrong.
            Quite the reverse! It is you who has predetermined that an unsubstantiated world of spirits and miracle-working gods exists, whereas I accept reality as empirically verified by scientific methodology. Anything other than this is a faith-belief, nothing more.

            Originally posted by Jedidiah View Post
            Sparko, you can not argue with a guy who assumes the answer before you even start.
            On the contrary, you cannot argue with a guy who assumes God exists as the starting point of his argument.
            “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
              1. The quote in your very own post disagrees with you.
              No it doesn’t, it is (part of) the point. If God exists, He does so necessarily. But if His will to create could have been different, that will-to-create is contingent. A necessarily existing entity whose will has a contingent nature? Nah….

              2. Not one person in this thread thinks your "argument" makes a lick of sense, nor has it convinced even one person to become an atheist. So good luck with that "best argument" and let me know how it works out for you.
              Recurring ad hominems, and big words from someone who has yet to answer the OP. Apparently you don’t know the best argument for Christianity.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Tassman View Post
                You’ve got it back-to-front. If a fictional figure like the Blue Fairy (or God) performs a “miracle” you would look for a natural explanation, not declare that the fictional figure must be real. Only the most gullible dumbass would do this.



                Quite the reverse! It is you who has predetermined that an unsubstantiated world of spirits and miracle-working gods exists, whereas I accept reality as empirically verified by scientific methodology. Anything other than this is a faith-belief, nothing more.
                You have said you would not accept any verifiable evidence for the supernatural. You are busted, Tassman. You are close-minded.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by crepuscule View Post
                  No it doesn’t, it is (part of) the point. If God exists, He does so necessarily. But if His will to create could have been different, that will-to-create is contingent. A necessarily existing entity whose will has a contingent nature? Nah….

                  Recurring ad hominems, and big words from someone who has yet to answer the OP. Apparently you don’t know the best argument for Christianity.
                  The best argument for Christianity is the one made by the Holy Spirit. Until the Holy Spirit touches you, no mere words will ever convince you, nor will you understand it.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by 37818 View Post
                    If we premises something which does not exist to not exist, can such a premise be shown to be absurd?
                    If you are referring to premises concerning the existence of God, from the humanist (atheist or agnostic) perspective. They do not normally make the presupposition that God does not exist[/U].The only presupposition that I know of is that Methodological Naturalism is the standard of the objective verifiable evidence and the falsification by scientific methods. The base their conclusions on this premise that there is no objective verifiable evidence that other worlds exist beyond the physical world, including the worlds of Gods, therefore Philosophical Naturalism.

                    They do not try and prove nor assume the negative.
                    Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                    Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                    But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                    go with the flow the river knows . . .

                    Frank

                    I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                      If you are referring to premises concerning the existence of God, from the humanist (atheist or agnostic) perspective. They do not normally make the presupposition that God does not exist[/U].The only presupposition that I know of is that Methodological Naturalism is the standard of the objective verifiable evidence and the falsification by scientific methods. The base their conclusions on this premise that there is no objective verifiable evidence that other worlds exist beyond the physical world, including the worlds of Gods, therefore Philosophical Naturalism.

                      They do not try and prove nor assume the negative.
                      That's a problematic argument. The success of methodological naturalism doesn't inherently entail the truth of metaphysical naturalism. You have to argue from one to the other, not just assert.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                        Until the Holy Spirit touches you, no mere words will ever convince you, nor will you understand it.
                        I'll just wait for that to happen then.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                          You have said you would not accept any verifiable evidence for the supernatural. You are busted, Tassman. You are close-minded.
                          I have said I will ONLY accept verifiable evidence for the supernatural but the fact is there isn’t any. Unlike you, I would not accept “miracles” as evidence, whether from a fictional god or the fictional Blue Fairy, on the basis that they would have a natural explanation.
                          “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                            The best argument for Christianity is the one made by the Holy Spirit. Until the Holy Spirit touches you, no mere words will ever convince you, nor will you understand it.
                            That's not an argument at all, it's purely subjective woo.
                            “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by psstein View Post
                              That's a problematic argument. The success of methodological naturalism doesn't inherently entail the truth of metaphysical naturalism. You have to argue from one to the other, not just assert.
                              Please reread my post. I said, 'they (Philosophical Naturalists) base their conclusions on . . .' Yes, the success methodological Naturalism does not inherently entail the truth of Metaphysical Naturalism. The belief in Philosophical Naturalism is a philosophical conclusion not a scientific based conclusion.
                              Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                              Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                              But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                              go with the flow the river knows . . .

                              Frank

                              I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                                The best argument for Christianity is the one made by the Holy Spirit. Until the Holy Spirit touches you, no mere words will ever convince you, nor will you understand it.
                                By an eerie coincidence, that's also an argument for the Cosmic Yoyo. Until you are touched by its immaterial string, no mere words will ever convince you, nor will you understand it.
                                Jorge: Functional Complex Information is INFORMATION that is complex and functional.

                                MM: First of all, the Bible is a fixed document.
                                MM on covid-19: We're talking about an illness with a better than 99.9% rate of survival.

                                seer: I believe that so called 'compassion' [for starving Palestinian kids] maybe a cover for anti Semitism, ...

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by whag, Yesterday, 03:01 PM
                                14 responses
                                57 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Started by whag, 03-17-2024, 04:55 PM
                                21 responses
                                129 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Started by whag, 03-14-2024, 06:04 PM
                                78 responses
                                414 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post tabibito  
                                Started by whag, 03-13-2024, 12:06 PM
                                45 responses
                                303 views
                                1 like
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Working...
                                X