The 'best' arguments for atheism and Christianity

[crepuscule]

Okay, since I do not understand what you are saying here I am not able to respond. Can you state this in another way?

me either. and it sounds like a mere assertion. Why can't a necessary entity alone willfully cause a contingent thing?

Basically because an entity that causes something contingent can not be exactly the same as an entity that does not cause something, else either both would cause or neither would.

Therefore an entity that causes something contingent exists in some world(s), (namely a world where that contingent thing is caused) but not in another world(s), (e.g. a world where that contingent does not exist). That causing entity is then itself, by definition, contingent.

[Sparko]

Basically because an entity that causes something contingent can not be exactly the same as an entity that does not cause something, else either both would cause or neither would.

Therefore an entity that causes something contingent exists in some world(s), (namely a world where that contingent thing is caused) but not in another world(s), (e.g. a world where that contingent does not exist). That causing entity is then itself, by definition, contingent.

You still are not making sense. Give us an example or something.

Are are saying that God, if he is a necessary being, can't create man who is contingent on God creating him? If so, why not?

[crepuscule]

You still are not making sense. Give us an example or something.

Are are saying that God, if he is a necessary being, can't create man who is contingent on God creating him? If so, why not?

Not contingent on God. I already said that with contingent I meant “exists in at least one possible world, but does not exist in at least one other”. That is afaik not the same as “dependent on”.

But apart from that, yes, I think that’s an example of what I mean. Look at it this way: if God could have chosen not to create us, then a world is possible in which His will to create us is absent. But if God’s will to create us exists in one possible world and not in another, then that will is –by definition- contingent.

[Jedidiah]

Makes no sense to me yet.

[tabibito]

Makes no sense to me yet.

Oh good - I was afraid it might be just me.

[Sparko]

Not contingent on God. I already said that with contingent I meant “exists in at least one possible world, but does not exist in at least one other”. That is afaik not the same as “dependent on”.

But apart from that, yes, I think that’s an example of what I mean. Look at it this way: if God could have chosen not to create us, then a world is possible in which His will to create us is absent. But if God’s will to create us exists in one possible world and not in another, then that will is –by definition- contingent.

huh?

In order to be "the best argument for atheism" your idea has to at least make sense. So far it doesn't

God being able to make decisions doesn't make him contingent. His decision to make or not make people doesn't affect his existence. He can't create a world in which he doesn't exist.

[crepuscule]

huh?

In order to be "the best argument for atheism" your idea has to at least make sense. So far it doesn't

God being able to make decisions doesn't make him contingent. His decision to make or not make people doesn't affect his existence. He can't create a world in which he doesn't exist.

Misrepresentation: I didn’t say God as a being is contingent, let alone that “He can create a world in which He doesn't exist”; I said God choosing to cause the universe is contingent; i.e. His will/wish to create is contingent. From a theistic perspective, the God choosing not to create the universe doesn’t exist but He could have existed, right? And if He did exist, the God choosing to create would not exist, would He?

His decision to make or not make people doesn't affect his existence.

It doesn't? God's decision to create people doesn't affect the existence of God deciding not to create people? They both exist? Or are they the same?

[Sparko]

Misrepresentation: I didn’t say God as a being is contingent, let alone that “He can create a world in which He doesn't exist”; I said God choosing to cause the universe is contingent; i.e. His will/wish to create is contingent. From a theistic perspective, the God choosing not to create the universe doesn’t exist but He could have existed, right? And if He did exist, the God choosing to create would not exist, would He?

Yeah that is not what contingent means. Whether God created or did not create the universe, he is the same God. If I choose to eat bacon or a bagel doesn't make me exist or not exist. I am still the same person who made a different decision. It has nothing to do with contingency. What I ate might be contingent on what I decide, but my will is not "contingent" on what I ate. Nor am I contingent on what I decided. In fact it seems like you are coming at contingency completely backwards.

It doesn't? God's decision to create people doesn't affect the existence of God deciding not to create people? They both exist? Or are they the same?

God exists whether he decided to make the universe or not make it. The God not creating the universe is not a different being than the God creating the universe. The Sparko who decided to eat bacon is not a different Sparko than the one who decided to eat a bagel.

[Jedidiah]

Misrepresentation: I didn’t say God as a being is contingent, let alone that “He can create a world in which He doesn't exist”; I said God choosing to cause the universe is contingent; i.e. His will/wish to create is contingent. From a theistic perspective, the God choosing not to create the universe doesn’t exist but He could have existed, right? And if He did exist, the God choosing to create would not exist, would He?

It doesn't? God's decision to create people doesn't affect the existence of God deciding not to create people? They both exist? Or are they the same?

Pretty twisted it seems to me.

[Doug Shaver]

The stretches that some of you would go to in order to maintain your skepticism is fascinating. "Definitely can't be divine intervention. Must be lizard people."

That is not my argument, but if it were, I fail to see how would be any worse than "We don't know how it could have happened. Must have been God."

[crepuscule]

Yeah that is not what contingent means.

Actually contingent is defined in a number of different ways, and I made it clear from start what I meant with it. You don’t get to define the terms of my argument.

Whether God created or did not create the universe, he is the same God.

Wrong. God willing the creation of the universe is not the same as God not willing the creation of the universe: His will, desire, and decisions are different.

If I choose to eat bacon or a bagel doesn't make me exist or not exist. I am still the same person who made a different decision. It has nothing to do with contingency. What I ate might be contingent on what I decide, but my will is not "contingent" on what I ate. Nor am I contingent on what I decided. In fact it seems like you are coming at contingency completely backwards.

No you are. I clearly defined contingent the way I did.

God exists whether he decided to make the universe or not make it. The God not creating the universe is not a different being than the God creating the universe. The Sparko who decided to eat bacon is not a different Sparko than the one who decided to eat a bagel.

Yes he is. For one their decisions are different. Are you really saying here that if someone returned a dropped wallet to its owner he is the exact same person as if he’d decided to keep that wallet? Why praise one and condemn the other?

[Sparko]

Actually contingent is defined in a number of different ways, and I made it clear from start what I meant with it. You don’t get to define the terms of my argument.

Wrong. God willing the creation of the universe is not the same as God not willing the creation of the universe: His will, desire, and decisions are different.

No you are. I clearly defined contingent the way I did.

Yes he is. For one their decisions are different. Are you really saying here that if someone returned a dropped wallet to its owner he is the exact same person as if he’d decided to keep that wallet? Why praise one and condemn the other?

you can define contingent to mean an ice cream cone but that doesn't make it so. Nor does it make your argument cogent or valid. As you can see nobody understands your argument nor agrees with it, so it is hardly the "best argument for atheism"

[JimL]

wrong. If gods were proven not to exist, I would stop believing in them.

You seem to be the only one who is stubbornly stuck in your beliefs and will not change no matter what the evidence. A true Fundy. Congrats, you are what you hate.

Really. And what would it take, what evidence would you accept as proof that gods don't exist?

[One Bad Pig]

That is not my argument, but if it were, I fail to see how would be any worse than "We don't know how it could have happened. Must have been God."

That's not our argument, either - more like, "In all of human history, we have no recordings of this happening naturally. After prayer to God, it happened. Must have been God."

[Doug Shaver]

That's not our argument, either - more like, "In all of human history, we have no recordings of this happening naturally. After prayer to God, it happened. Must have been God."

If I were to witness it happening and still rejected that argument, I wouldn't blame you for thinking I was just being pigheaded. Even so, that is irrelevant to whether, given the evidence I actually have witnessed, my current skepticism about miracles is justified.