If we premises something which does not exist to not exist, can such a premise be shown to be absurd?
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
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
-
. . . 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
-
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"
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 PostContingent 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?
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 PostYet 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.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 PostYet 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.
Originally posted by Jedidiah View PostSparko, you can not argue with a guy who assumes the answer before you even start.“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 Post1. 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.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Tassman View PostYou’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.
Comment
-
Originally posted by crepuscule View PostNo 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.
Comment
-
Originally posted by 37818 View PostIf we premises something which does not exist to not exist, can such a premise be shown to be absurd?
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 PostIf 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.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Sparko View PostYou have said you would not accept any verifiable evidence for the supernatural. You are busted, Tassman. You are close-minded.“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 PostThe 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.“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 PostThat'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.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 PostThe 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.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
|
39 responses
136 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by tabibito
Today, 02:22 PM
|
||
Started by whag, 03-17-2024, 04:55 PM
|
21 responses
129 views
0 likes
|
Last Post 03-21-2024, 12:15 PM | ||
Started by whag, 03-14-2024, 06:04 PM
|
80 responses
425 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by tabibito
Today, 12:33 PM
|
||
Started by whag, 03-13-2024, 12:06 PM
|
45 responses
303 views
1 like
|
Last Post 03-17-2024, 07:19 AM |
Comment