The 'best' arguments for atheism and Christianity

[Sparko]

Best argument for atheism, "I hate the cold!"

[Tassman]

.First off, I do know God. And for that reason I cannot be an atheist.

You think you know God whereas I think you’re delusional.

And even though God is in fact self evident, without Christ no one can know God.

The natural universe is “self-evident” whereas there is no evidence of a supernatural universe. And what does the hypothetical notion of Christ have to do with anything?

What logical argument can you make to show there is no God?

What logical argument can you make to show there is?

The mere denial that the Uncaused Existence is God is nothing more than just a denial.

The natural universe needs no more “cause” that your hypothesised deity does, but we know the former exists whereas we don’t know that the latter does.

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.

Why would I have any interest in explaining an infantile belief system and why would I accept your authority as an arbiter?

[Tassman]

Best argument for atheism, "I hate the cold!"

Best argument for Christian theism, the boogeymen will punish me forever if I'm naughty.

[Sparko]

Best argument for Christian theism, the boogeymen will punish me forever if I'm naughty.

the boogeyman will be much too worried about his own hide.

[crepuscule]

My argument is not refuted.

It’s not supported either. It’s not an argument then.

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

I do not care if you don't.
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.

Still barking up the wrong tree.

What I’m not saying is:

- If God exists He is not uncaused existence / self-existent

- If God is not uncaused existence He still is God

- God is not God

- The argument from uncaused existence disproves God

So stop arguing as if I’ve said any of these, unless you can show how they follow from the following.


What I do say is

- If God exists He is uncaused existence

- If uncaused existence exists it need not be God, unless (and this your burden) you can show that uncaused existence has all defining qualities that God has, and not just being uncaused existence

- Being/having uncaused existence alone does not make an entity God.

- If the uncaused existence is not God, then God does not exist.

[37818]

- If uncaused existence exists it need not be God, unless (and this your burden) you can show that uncaused existence has all defining qualities that God has, and not just being uncaused existence

What attribute attributed to God cannot possibly be attributed to the self Existent Uncaused Existence?

[37818]

You think you know God whereas I think you’re delusional.

What definitive argument or evidence do you have by which you can know that the self Existent Uncaused Existence cannot possibly be God? Otherwise what you think of my knowing God is nothing more than an ad hominem on your part.

[carpedm9587]

I'm not sure this works...

If God exists He is uncaused existence

I think we could grant this, though it really depends on which definition of "god" is being used. But this certainly fits the conventional Christian definition.

If uncaused existence exists it need not be God, unless (and this your burden) you can show that uncaused existence has all defining qualities that God has, and not just being uncaused existence.

I also agree with this...

Being/having uncaused existence alone does not make an entity God.

It's not clear to me this is substantively different than the previous statement.

If the uncaused existence is not God, then God does not exist.

I'm not sure how this necessary follows, OR that it shows there is no god. Are you implying there is necessarily only one uncaused existence? If so, I don't see how that flows from the previous statements. Am I missing something?

[carpedm9587]

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, . . ."

Setting aside the religious theme at the end (about which I have no comment as it lies outside my belief system), the first question interests me. I do not know what you mean by "thing." My understanding of both space and time is that they are relationships. Time is the relationship between event, and space the relationship between instances of matter and/or energy. They are not "things" in the same way that a "table" is a thing, but they "exist" as relational dimensions.

Of course, my physics is a coupke decades old, so I may not be up to speed on the latest/greatest...

[shunyadragon]

Best argument for atheism, "I hate the cold!"

Best argument for Christianity, "I hate and fear extreme heat."

[37818]

Setting aside the religious theme at the end (about which I have no comment as it lies outside my belief system), the first question interests me. I do not know what you mean by "thing." My understanding of both space and time is that they are relationships. Time is the relationship between event, and space the relationship between instances of matter and/or energy. They are not "things" in the same way that a "table" is a thing, but they "exist" as relational dimensions.

Of course, my physics is a coupke decades old, so I may not be up to speed on the latest/greatest...

Space and time and matter(rest mass) and energy(electromagnetic) are interrelated. They can be considered things. Those things, as such, I would not regard as God. We see and measure space by the objects in space. Distance, time, mass and energy while interrelated are relative.

Traditional physics, as I understand it, their equations generally treat time as absolute. Making corrections based on gravity and relative motions. Rates of time being relative.

Now I think I did not say anything you did not already have some kind of understanding of.

As for God, He is regarded as omnipresent. So in that regard, there would not be anything not in God's presence.
I am of the view that God is the uncaused reality in which all other things have their existence. That God is knowable and the God of the Bible are other issues about God.

[JimL]

Space and time and matter(rest mass) and energy(electromagnetic) are interrelated. They can be considered things. Those things, as such, I would not regard as God. We see and measure space by the objects in space. Distance, time, mass and energy while interrelated are relative.

Traditional physics, as I understand it, their equations generally treat time as absolute. Making corrections based on gravity and relative motions. Rates of time being relative.

Now I think I did not say anything you did not already have some kind of understanding of.

As for God, He is regarded as omnipresent. So in that regard, there would not be anything not in God's presence.
I am of the view that God is the uncaused reality in which all other things have their existence. That God is knowable and the God of the Bible are other issues about God.

And are you also of the view that the uncaused reality created the material world from nothing, by speaking it into existence?

[carpedm9587]

Space and time and matter(rest mass) and energy(electromagnetic) are interrelated. They can be considered things. Those things, as such, I would not regard as God. We see and measure space by the objects in space. Distance, time, mass and energy while interrelated are relative.

Traditional physics, as I understand it, their equations generally treat time as absolute. Making corrections based on gravity and relative motions. Rates of time being relative.

Now I think I did not say anything you did not already have some kind of understanding of.

Yes - but I think you err in considering time a "constant." Relativity tells us that mass can warp both space AND time, rendering them less than "absolute" in their measurement.

As for God, He is regarded as omnipresent. So in that regard, there would not be anything not in God's presence.
I am of the view that God is the uncaused reality in which all other things have their existence. That God is knowable and the God of the Bible are other issues about God.

I am aware of your beliefs, 37818. I once shared them (or at least an approximation of them). I was mostly interested in the observation about space (and, as it turns out, time) as "things." I am fairly sure we won't see eye to eye on the god issue, but if you want to discuss, I am willing.

[Jedidiah]

Yes - but I think you err in considering time a "constant." Relativity tells us that mass can warp both space AND time, rendering them less than "absolute" in their measurement.

You missed this:

. . . Making corrections based on gravity and relative motions. Rates of time being relative.

So your objection is already covered.

[37818]

Yes - but I think you err in considering time a "constant." Relativity tells us that mass can warp both space AND time, rendering them less than "absolute" in their measurement.

I do not believe time is a constant. In Newtonian physics time is treated as an absolute. But we know it is not. E_k = mv² / 2. Where v = distance / time. Time is treated as an absolute, as if time is the same rate everywhere.

I am aware of your beliefs, 37818. I once shared them (or at least an approximation of them). I was mostly interested in the observation about space (and, as it turns out, time) as "things." I am fairly sure we won't see eye to eye on the god issue, but if you want to discuss, I am willing.

Disagreement is always a matter of a different understanding. What is important about disagreements is being able to at the very least understand and agree on, is to the why of a disagreement.