The 'best' arguments for atheism and Christianity

[crepuscule]

Well, Uncaused Existence is the fundamental identity of God which for the reasons you stated reject.
Yeah, being a 'mammal' does not make a 'lion' a 'lion.' Yet that argument does not negate the fact that God is the 'Uncaused Existence.' Upon which all other existent things are contingent, regardless whether they be caused or uncaused.
That is because you deny the only valid and fundamental identity of God. Your view of God is false, otherwise it would not be possible to be an atheist.
Not really. Since God would have to not be God.

Like I said and you deny, in that, God would not need to be God is really your argument. You denying that 'Uncaused Existence' being God's fundamental identity. Which you must disallow to remain an atheist.

You think the argument "need not be" is valid, when in fact it is not. It is what God is.

So now you say uncaused existence is the only valid and fundamental identity of God? In your previous post you said quite the opposite: infinite, omnipresent or anything else (are) fundamentally the meaning that should be attached to the idea of God. So which one is it? Do you really believe that God being a mere uncaused existence but not being infinite, omnipresent, morally perfect, first cause, wilfull creator, and what-all-not still is God?

It's really very simple.
God being only uncaused existence but not having those other identities would not be God.
Uncaused existence not having those identities still is uncaused existence.
Therefore 'uncaused existence' is not synonymous with 'God'. It describes God, but does not define Him. Just like ‘mammal’ describes a lion (and indeed is a fundamental identity of it), but it does not define a lion.

[37818]

Uncaused existence is not what defines god, all that uncaused existence defines is a something that exists eternally, like the eternal substance of all existing things.

What is this eternal substance which defines all existing things? Space is an existing thing.

Most all physical existing things occupy space in some way - but they are not what constitute space. Space as we know it has a beginning with the known universe.

[37818]

This is your unevidenced assumption, but it need not be God. It could just as easily be characteristic of the natural universe. There is at least some evidence of the latter, there is none for the former.

Uncaused Existence is the identity of God that I know. ( "For in Him we live, move, and have our being, . . ." -- The Apostle Paul)

[37818]

So now you say uncaused existence is the only valid and fundamental identity of God? In your previous post you said quite the opposite: infinite, omnipresent or anything else (are) fundamentally the meaning that should be attached to the idea of God. So which one is it? Do you really believe that God being a mere uncaused existence but not being infinite, omnipresent, morally perfect, first cause, wilfull creator, and what-all-not still is God?

It's really very simple.
God being only uncaused existence but not having those other identities would not be God.
Uncaused existence not having those identities still is uncaused existence.
Therefore 'uncaused existence' is not synonymous with 'God'. It describes God, but does not define Him. Just like ‘mammal’ describes a lion (and indeed is a fundamental identity of it), but it does not define a lion.

God being, the Who Is, the Uncaused Existence, is infinite, is omnipresent. Being infinite and omnipresent are characteristics of being the Uncaused Existence. Omniscience is another.

[crepuscule]

God being, the Who Is, the Uncaused Existence, is infinite, is omnipresent.

Yes (given His existence), but are those other characteristics such as infinite, omnipresence, morally perfect etc. fundamental characterics of God? Because in post #581 you said they were, while in post #583 you said uncaused existence is the only fundamental characteristic of God.

Being infinite and omnipresent are characteristics of being the Uncaused Existence. Omniscience is another.

This is the crux of the matter. Why are infinite, omnipresence, omniscience etc characteristics of uncaused existence?

[37818]

Yes (given His existence), but are those other characteristics such as infinite, omnipresence, morally perfect etc. fundamental characterics of God? Because in post #581 you said they were, while in post #583 you said uncaused existence is the only fundamental characteristic of God.

What I wrote was;

. . . the only valid and fundamental identity of God. . . .

So, yeah. What I should have said was "primary" not "only." What being at issue is that unless God is the Uncaused Existence He is not God. Since there would still have to be an uncaused existence and uncaused existence has no God.

This is the crux of the matter. Why are infinite, omnipresence, omniscience etc characteristics of uncaused existence?

For all other things being contingent on there being an uncaused existence. It would possess all other things. Which would mean there could be nothing else without it. Unless something exists it is not true. In what ever way that anything might exist would be within the uncaused existence in that all other existences whether caused or even uncaused would be contingent on it. The concept of 1 + 1 = 2 for example.

Ask any other theist who has not read this thread, "Why should 1 + 1 = 2 need God to be true?" If it does not, "Why should there even need to be a God?" can be argued.

[Tassman]

Uncaused Existence is the identity of God that I know. ( "For in Him we live, move, and have our being, . . ." -- The Apostle Paul)

Uncaused Existence is the identity of God that you believe, you can't "know" this because there is no substantive evidence of God existing. Quoting from a book believed by you, but not me, to be the "Word of God" is not a substantive argument AFAIC.

[Cerpin Taxt]

"Existence" is not a thing to be caused or uncaused. It is an attribute of things. It is what things *do*.

Things, therefore, can be caused or uncaused, but there is no reason to believe an uncaused thing must exist. At the same time, it appears that many things begin to exist all the time without causes.

[37818]

Uncaused Existence is the identity of God that you believe, you can't "know" this because there is no substantive evidence of God existing. Quoting from a book believed by you, but not me, to be the "Word of God" is not a substantive argument AFAIC.

.First off, I do know God. And for that reason I cannot be an atheist. And even though God is in fact self evident, without Christ no one can know God.

What logical argument can you make to show there is no God? The mere denial that the Uncaused Existence is God is nothing more than just a denial.

Here is something I do not believe you can do> Give the genuine explanation of the gospel of grace - correctly. Here is why: If you could you would become a believer.

[37818]

"Existence" is not a thing to be caused or uncaused. It is an attribute of things. It is what things *do*.

Things, therefore, can be caused or uncaused, but there is no reason to believe an uncaused thing must exist. At the same time, it appears that many things begin to exist all the time without causes.

Is space not a thing? Why or why not? God is not space, yet the Apostle Paul said, ". . . For in Him we live, and move, and have our being, . . ."

[crepuscule]

What I wrote was;

. . . the only valid and fundamental identity of God. . . .

So, yeah. What I should have said was "primary" not "only." What being at issue is that unless God is the Uncaused Existence He is not God. Since there would still have to be an uncaused existence and uncaused existence has no God.

That’s not the issue. The issue is whether or not the uncaused existence is God. What you wrote –the reverse- is rather obvious.

For all other things being contingent on there being an uncaused existence. It would possess all other things. Which would mean there could be nothing else without it. Unless something exists it is not true. In what ever way that anything might exist would be within the uncaused existence in that all other existences whether caused or even uncaused would be contingent on it. The concept of 1 + 1 = 2 for example.

You seem to be arguing for the mere existence of uncaused existence here, which is not the issue at hand. A natural/mechanistic/non-divine uncaused existence could also be the thing without which nothing else could exist, so this doesn’t suggest in any way the uncaused existence is God.

Ask any other theist who has not read this thread, "Why should 1 + 1 = 2 need God to be true?" If it does not, "Why should there even need to be a God?" can be argued.

Why ask another? I’m not interested in how many other people agree with you.

[Cerpin Taxt]

Is space not a thing? Why or why not?

No, space is an abstraction. It emerges from our perceptions of the relationships among things in our experience.

God is not space, yet the Apostle Paul said, ". . . For in Him we live, and move, and have our being, . . ."

So what? Paul doesn't know what he's talking about.

[tabibito]

Is space not a thing? Why or why not? God is not space, yet the Apostle Paul said, ". . . For in Him we live, and move, and have our being, . . ."

You are aware that Paul is citing Aratus, the Greek Stoic Philosopher and Poet, yes?

[37818]

That’s not the issue. The issue is whether or not the uncaused existence is God. What you wrote –the reverse- is rather obvious.

My argument is not refuted. But mere denial is does not refute that God's primary fundamental identity is the Self-Existent, the Who Is, which I have referred to as the Uncaused Existence, which He is.

You seem to be arguing for the mere existence of uncaused existence here, which is not the issue at hand. A natural/mechanistic/non-divine uncaused existence could also be the thing without which nothing else could exist, so this doesn’t suggest in any way the uncaused existence is God.

Denying what and who God is does not make it so.

Why ask another?

I do not care if you don't.

I’m not interested in how many other people agree with you.

What matters is knowing God. What and who He is.

And not knowing God is the Uncaused Existence does not change who He is. The only why anyone can know Him is through His Son, the Lord Jesus Christ.

Atheism can not refute God, but only deny.

[37818]

You are aware that Paul is citing Aratus, the Greek Stoic Philosopher and Poet, yes?

Yes, and that was Paul's opening argument to what also then cited and used to argue against their idols.