The 'best' arguments for atheism and Christianity

[carpedm9587]

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.

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.

Well, in my experience, the "why" of our disagreements on the idea of god is usually rooted in the different presuppositions we accept as true. So what are the presuppositions you accept as true that serve as the basis for your belief in god?

[carpedm9587]

You missed this:

So your objection is already covered.

Yes - I did overlook that. Thanks for the clarification.

I'm not sure I was "objecting" per se - merely reflecting my understanding of the physics.

It appears 37818 and I were basically agreeing...

[37818]

Well, in my experience, the "why" of our disagreements on the idea of god is usually rooted in the different presuppositions we accept as true. So what are the presuppositions you accept as true that serve as the basis for your belief in god?

The main presupposition being that God is the Existence proper. And that God is the God of the Hebrews whose Name means self Existent, as the Person Who Is. (Exodus 3:14-15).

[carpedm9587]

The main presupposition being that God is the Existence proper. And that God is the God of the Hebrews whose Name means self Existent, as the Person Who Is. (Exodus 3:14-15).

Umm... I'm sorry...but you're not really saying anything that means anything to me. I'm not sure what is gained by capitalizing existence, or adding the word proper. Are you trying to articulate Aquinas' concept of god as "esse" - existence? If so, I have to admit I have long since come to a point where that entire concept just doesn't make any sense to me. You'll have to explain it.

I am aware of the meanings of "Yahweh" and "Jehovah." I do not believe the ancient meaning of a name confers truth on the concept, any more than I think that the root of my name, which means "Who is like god?" says anything about my being.

[Tassman]

The main presupposition being that God is the Existence proper. And that God is the God of the Hebrews whose Name means self Existent, as the Person Who Is. (Exodus 3:14-15).

Why accept a "presupposition" for which there's no substantive evidence, i.e. God? Why not accept the natural universe's existence as the thing tacitly assumed beforehand at the beginning of one's line of argument or course of action.

[JimL]

The main presupposition being that God is the Existence proper. And that God is the God of the Hebrews whose Name means self Existent, as the Person Who Is. (Exodus 3:14-15).

And are you also of the opinion that the self existent existence created the material world by speaking it into existence from out of nothing?

[Leonhard]

The single best argument against Christianity, has been, is, and will always be the problem of evil. Christians have always admitted as much. There is evil, yet God is perfectly good. These two facts exist in a paradoxical tension that admits of no easy solution. This problem is compounded when we face evil in our own life, and can't find an explanation for it. Christianity tells us there's a huge story all things fit into, yet the evil and pain we experience feels random, chaotic, fitting more into a play like Waiting for Godot.

One can give various defenses that the existence of such evil ultimate constitutes no real argument against Christianity. It is possible to trust in a meaning, unseen and beyond us that ties together these things, that will be revealed at the end of time. And for the rational version of the problem of evil. This suffices.

For the emotive, or personal experience problem, this is more complicated. We can of course simple grow our virtues of faith to the point where we simple ignore what we experience. And simple trust that all will be well in the end. All will be righted. Every, single, wrong. We can speculate, like C.S Lewis does in the Problem of Pain, that God uses suffering to wake us up and shape us into holy people if let the experience do this to us prayerfully. Ultimately most people have mix of either going on.

I'm satisfied with the rational argument. The problem of evil can be shown not to be a decisive argument against Christianity, nor even a probabilistic argument.

The experiental problem of evil requires a pastoral approach, and one of experience, meditation and prayer. Ultimately one makes a decision.

[JimL]

The single best argument against Christianity, has been, is, and will always be the problem of evil. Christians have always admitted as much. There is evil, yet God is perfectly good. These two facts exist in a paradoxical tension that admits of no easy solution. This problem is compounded when we face evil in our own life, and can't find an explanation for it. Christianity tells us there's a huge story all things fit into, yet the evil and pain we experience feels random, chaotic, fitting more into a play like Waiting for Godot.

One can give various defenses that the existence of such evil ultimate constitutes no real argument against Christianity. It is possible to trust in a meaning, unseen and beyond us that ties together these things, that will be revealed at the end of time. And for the rational version of the problem of evil. This suffices.

For the emotive, or personal experience problem, this is more complicated. We can of course simple grow our virtues of faith to the point where we simple ignore what we experience. And simple trust that all will be well in the end. All will be righted. Every, single, wrong. We can speculate, like C.S Lewis does in the Problem of Pain, that God uses suffering to wake us up and shape us into holy people if let the experience do this to us prayerfully. Ultimately most people have mix of either going on.

I'm satisfied with the rational argument. The problem of evil can be shown not to be a decisive argument against Christianity, nor even a probabilistic argument.

The experiental problem of evil requires a pastoral approach, and one of experience, meditation and prayer. Ultimately one makes a decision.

I think a better argument is the one against the idea that the material world was spoken into existence, created out of nothing. Afaics, there is no reason to believe that whatsoever. First off the thiest has to believe in a god for which there is no substantive evidence, then they have to believe that by that unknowable god, the material world just came into existence from out of nothing, aka creation.

[carpedm9587]

I think a better argument is the one against the idea that the material world was spoken into existence, created out of nothing. Afaics, there is no reason to believe that whatsoever. First off the thiest has to believe in a god for which there is no substantive evidence, then they have to believe that by that unknowable god, the material world just came into existence from out of nothing, aka creation.

I have found that pretty much all logical arguments for an against the existence of a god encounter problems at one point or another, and scientific arguments tend to fail altogether. My beliefs concerning the existence of a god are more experiential than they are definitively logical/scientific. There is nothing in my experience that speaks to the existence of a god, ergo I do not add one to the universe just because I was raised to believe there is one, or because others believe there is one. And each idea of "god" I have encountered is simply too riddled with internal contradictions or simply nonsensical (to me) statements.

It's unfortunate, in my view, that this puts me in the position of being seen (often) as a ridiculer of theists. That view is further enhanced by the number of atheists who DO take a ridiculing position against theists. I know of no one who adopts a worldview maliciously or trivially. That does not make all worldviews equally correct. Naturally, I believe mine is (or I would not hold it and would have a different one), so I believe worldviews that are not the same as mine are incorrect. But that is what everyone does - so I have to acknowlegde that theist has the same view of me that I have of them. If I do not want to be ridiculed for mine, I have to believe they do not want to be ridiculed for theirs.

There is a lot we can teach each other if we spend a little time and listen. If nothing else, juxtaposing our worldview against that of someone who thinks differently provides us an opportunity to test our own, and adjust where it is lacking. That is my preferred way of engaging with people here, or anywhere in my life.

[37818]

Umm... I'm sorry...but you're not really saying anything that means anything to me. I'm not sure what is gained by capitalizing existence, or adding the word proper. Are you trying to articulate Aquinas' concept of god as "esse" - existence? If so, I have to admit I have long since come to a point where that entire concept just doesn't make any sense to me. You'll have to explain it.

There are self-evident truths. Also what does not exist is not true.
Existence itself is the fundamental self evident truth by which all other self evident truths are self evident. That existence is the identity of God. Things which exist are not the existence. Only existence is itself. I capitalized Existence to indicate my presupposition for you that It is what God is being the Uncaused Existence as I know Him. God is both infinite and personal being omnipresent. Like the Apostle Paul used in an argument, "In Him we live, and move, and have our being." Genuine Christians in general may know know God as such but they do know Him through Christ. For genuine Christians knowing God by knowing Jesus Christ as their Savior is how they know they have eternal life. (John 14:6; John 17:3; 1 John 5:9-13; Titus 1:2).

I am aware of the meanings of "Yahweh" and "Jehovah." I do not believe the ancient meaning of a name confers truth on the concept, any more than I think that the root of my name, which means "Who is like god?" says anything about my being.

While our human names do not determine our character. God's Hebrew Name is Who He Is.

[37818]

The single best argument against Christianity, has been, is, and will always be the problem of evil. Christians have always admitted as much. There is evil, yet God is perfectly good. These two facts exist in a paradoxical tension that admits of no easy solution. This problem is compounded when we face evil in our own life, and can't find an explanation for it. Christianity tells us there's a huge story all things fit into, yet the evil and pain we experience feels random, chaotic, fitting more into a play like Waiting for Godot.

One can give various defenses that the existence of such evil ultimate constitutes no real argument against Christianity. It is possible to trust in a meaning, unseen and beyond us that ties together these things, that will be revealed at the end of time. And for the rational version of the problem of evil. This suffices.

For the emotive, or personal experience problem, this is more complicated. We can of course simple grow our virtues of faith to the point where we simple ignore what we experience. And simple trust that all will be well in the end. All will be righted. Every, single, wrong. We can speculate, like C.S Lewis does in the Problem of Pain, that God uses suffering to wake us up and shape us into holy people if let the experience do this to us prayerfully. Ultimately most people have mix of either going on.

I'm satisfied with the rational argument. The problem of evil can be shown not to be a decisive argument against Christianity, nor even a probabilistic argument.

The experiental problem of evil requires a pastoral approach, and one of experience, meditation and prayer. Ultimately one makes a decision.

It should also be noted:

Just as a lie needs truth. Evil needs good. without good there can be no evil. Now God is the infinite good. It is finite good which can be corrupted by evil. God in story made man good. but fall of man was that the created good man, without the knowledge of good, in disobedience acquiring God's knowledge of good and evil (Genesis 3:22).

[carpedm9587]

There are self-evident truths. Also what does not exist is not true.

Yes - there are a priori truths. Not sure what you are trying to say with the second sentence. Truth is a measure of alignment between something said and the reality it reflects. So "there are no unicorns," is a true statement if there are no unicorns in existence, and false if there are. The truth of a thing is not measured by existence alone - it is measured by the alignment of a statement with reality.

Existence itself is the fundamental self evident truth by which all other self evident truths are self evident.

Based on what I said above - this sentence has no meaning to me.

That existence is the identity of God. Things which exist are not the existence.

Also does not compute. Sorry, 37818, you're not saying anything that I can understand.

Only existence is itself.

I am myself. A piano is itself. Anything given thing is itself in the context of that thing. So I have no idea what this sentence means.

I capitalized Existence to indicate my presupposition for you that It is what God is being the Uncaused Existence as I know Him.

So I assume this is the basic argument about the existence of everything we known needing to be caused, and ultimately you have to arrive at an uncaused cause or you have the "turtles all the way down" problem? Except we don't know if the universe is actually a "turtles all the way down" universe because we cannot, currently, peer past the monet of the big bang. We also cannot know if the universe itself is the uncaused cause. Quantum mechanics suggests that "nothing" is the most unstable condition, and can give rise to "something." Makes my head ache, I have to admit, but the so called "laws" of the universe we observe at our macro level are apparently not the functional laws at the quantum level, where we see many things that defy "common logic" (e.g., effect preceeding cause, relation at a distance, observation effecting reality, etc.)

God is both infinite and personal being omnipresent. Like the Apostle Paul used in an argument, "In Him we live, and move, and have our being." Genuine Christians in general may know know God as such but they do know Him through Christ. For genuine Christians knowing God by knowing Jesus Christ as their Savior is how they know they have eternal life. (John 14:6; John 17:3; 1 John 5:9-13; Titus 1:2).

For reasons I am sure you will understand - I cannot use the Christian bible as my source of "true beliefs" until someone can show it has the authority to serve that role. Until then, I see the Christian Bible in the same terms I see the Quran, the Tripitaka, the Pali Canon, the Tibetan Book of the Dead, the Vedas, and so forth: the religious writing of a particular religious sect that sets out the beliefs of that particular sect/religion.

While our human names do not determine our character. God's Hebrew Name is Who He Is.

The first sentence does not make sense syntactically, but I think you are saying our names do not determine our character. Interestingly, there is some evidence that shows how we are named significantly impacts our development and our choices. As for your second sentence, a being is not merely a name. That sentence makes no sense to me.

[lee_merrill]

I haven't read all 62 pages(!), but I think the best argument for Christianity is fulfilled prophecy. Such as the four kingdoms in Daniel, the Babylonians, the Persians, the Greeks and the Romans, ending in "partly iron and partly baked clay." This latter statement is still true today, a divided world in Europe, and this is the last stage before God sets his kingdom up in the world.

Blessings,
Lee

[carpedm9587]

I haven't read all 62 pages(!), but I think the best argument for Christianity is fulfilled prophecy. Such as the four kingdoms in Daniel, the Babylonians, the Persians, the Greeks and the Romans, ending in "partly iron and partly baked clay." This latter statement is still true today, a divided world in Europe, and this is the last stage before God sets his kingdom up in the world.

Blessings,
Lee

I have to admit, I have never found this particular argument all that compelling.

[Starlight]

I have found that pretty much all logical arguments for an against the existence of a god encounter problems at one point or another, and scientific arguments tend to fail altogether. My beliefs concerning the existence of a god are more experiential than they are definitively logical/scientific. There is nothing in my experience that speaks to the existence of a god

Pretty sure that was what I wrote in the first post in this thread. But glad to see someone saying the same thing 63 pages later, and amused to see people are still posting in this thread.

It's unfortunate, in my view, that this puts me in the position of being seen (often) as a ridiculer of theists. That view is further enhanced by the number of atheists who DO take a ridiculing position against theists.

That's a cultural thing, and is heavily affected by the proportion of atheists in your country. In my country almost 50% of the people on the census say they have no religion, and a large proportion of those who do happen to report a religion on the census don't actually actively practice it. So if someone asks your religion (not that they commonly do) and you say "atheist" they would just shrug and move on because chances are about half their friends are atheists, and they're perfectly aware atheists aren't going to ridicule them for any faith they do or don't have themselves. The current and previous two elected leaders in my country happened to be atheists and approximately no one cares. Whereas in the US, it seems to be considered political suicide at the federal level to admit to being an atheist.