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
See more
See less

The 'best' arguments for atheism and Christianity

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by crepuscule View Post
    I do, for an obvious reason. A regression that has no first cause can by definition not have an uncaused cause.
    Such a regression not being caused to have no first cause would be itself uncaused. Would it not? Even though all of its caused causes are caused.
    Again, the existence of a regression is dependent on (the possibility of) existence existing, but not necessarily caused by it.
    As I thought I explained, existence and cause are two different things.
    Exactly. That’s why a regression being contingent on existence is not the same as a regression being caused by existence. You keep on arguing as if the first implies the second.
    No. I am arguing uncaused cause, in this case, the uncaused regression would have to be uncaused existence being the same with uncaused existence and yet also be two different things.
    Yup.
    We agree that not anything can be self caused.
    And an ‘infinite set of finite and temporal causes’ can’t be uncaused existence because?
    Ah, you missed the point. Uncaused existence yes. But the caused causes are not the existence. Uncaused existence and uncaused regression are two different things, even though uncaused regression must be the same thing as uncaused existence in being uncaused too. So just as things in space, taking up space, are not space.
    The regression as a whole would be uncaused. Each part is caused by another.
    Yes. It is both uncaused existence and also causes. Being one and two things at the same time.
    So according to you that can't exist either?
    No. It is my view that the pre-incarnate Son of God is the reason for any kind of causes (John 1:3).
    And the incarnation it became evident that He was both God and being a man which is not God.

    No, I’m arguing that uncaused existence need not be God, i.e. God is not just uncaused existence.
    Your view of what God would or would not be. That is why you are an atheist. You do not want to believe what God actually is. Your concept of God disallows it.
    . . . 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

    Comment


    • Originally posted by crepuscule View Post

      No, I’m arguing that uncaused existence need not be God, i.e. God is not just uncaused existence.
      OK. Somehow I missed that point you are making. Again, what I am arguing is anything uncaused is uncaused existence with the uncaused existence.
      . . . 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

      Comment


      • Originally posted by 37818 View Post
        Natural law is the natural revelation being the word of God in my view (Psalm 19:1-4; Romans 10:17-18). So from that stand point and God's absolute omniscience has no beginning with God. And it is God who is infinite who is the source of natural law (John 1:3 through the second person of the Godhead, BTW).
        We are back again, again and again that what you are claiming is simply an issue of belief and faith. Your argument fails that 'Infinite Regression' has any relevance as to which is the uncaused cause, either God or Natural Law. Simple assertions based on belief and faith are not an argument.
        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 Post
          We are back again, again and again that what you are claiming is simply an issue of belief and faith. Your argument fails that 'Infinite Regression' has any relevance as to which is the uncaused cause, either God or Natural Law. Simple assertions based on belief and faith are not an argument.
          Everyone has presuppositions, and everyone argues from their beliefs and their "faith" system of belief. Since you are making a distinction between belief and "faith." Agnosticism, and atheism are not void of having some kind of beliefs about God of which they doubt or deny.

          Either God or Natural Law is in your belief. In the concept of God, God is without beginning, infinite and omnipresent and deemed to be creator and source of natural law. Natural law deals with the finite and temporal things of creation.

          There is no science without belief in science.
          . . . 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

          Comment


          • [QUOTE=37818;465048]Everyone has presuppositions, and everyone argues from their beliefs and their "faith" system of belief. Since you are making a distinction between belief and "faith." Agnosticism, and atheism are not void of having some kind of beliefs about God of which they doubt or deny.

            Either God or Natural Law is in your belief. In the concept of God, God is without beginning, infinite and omnipresent and deemed to be creator and source of natural law. Natural law deals with the finite and temporal things of creation.

            Correction here; Both world views deal with finite and temporal things of our physical existence. Natural is not a finite temporal thing.



            There is no science without belief in science.
            Needs more explanation. Science tests its assumptions and presupposition of uniformity and predictability of the nature of our physical existence repeatedly with every theory, hypothesis, and associated research. This results in a consistent predicable world view of our physical existence in which pretty much 98%+ scientists are in agreement as to the general nature of our physical existence, its history and evolution. Unfortunately the religious beliefs of the world lack any such consistency, agreement nor predictability,
            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


            • If the cause is caused by the uncaused cause's causation of the cause, then the cause is caused by a cause which is the uncaused cause. Because a cause has a cause unless it is an uncaused cause that has no cause.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                If the cause is caused by the uncaused cause's causation of the cause, then the cause is caused by a cause which is the uncaused cause. Because a cause has a cause unless it is an uncaused cause that has no cause.
                A cause is a cause, because, of course, there's nothing can cause there a cause uncaused, unless, of course, the cause uncaused, is an uncaused cause instead!
                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


                • Originally posted by Roy View Post
                  A cause is a cause, because, of course, there's nothing can cause there a cause uncaused, unless, of course, the cause uncaused, is an uncaused cause instead!
                  Of course if the cause was a course in coarseness then the cause would be a coarse course, of course.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by 37818 View Post
                    Such a regression not being caused to have no first cause would be itself uncaused. Would it not? Even though all of its caused causes are caused.
                    Imo yes. The regression as a whole would be uncaused (or uncaused existence, as you call it). Each part would be caused and a cause. What goes for the whole need not go for each part (fallacy of division), and what goes for each part need not go for the whole (fallacy of composition).

                    No. I am arguing uncaused cause, in this case, the uncaused regression would have to be uncaused existence being the same with uncaused existence and yet also be two different things.
                    What other thing would the whole regression be? It can't be a cause; you yourself said nothing can be a cause of itself.

                    Ah, you missed the point. Uncaused existence yes. But the caused causes are not the existence.
                    Yes they are; caused existence.

                    Uncaused existence and uncaused regression are two different things,(...)
                    I know they are different things but one can be the other, right? Just like swan and white are different things, but one can be the other.

                    Yes. It is both uncaused existence and also causes. Being one and two things at the same time.
                    Wrong, the regression is not a cause. Each part of it is, but the regression itself not. You keep confusing those.

                    OK. Somehow I missed that point you are making.
                    But do you agree with that point, or do you think God is merely an uncaused first cause?

                    Again, what I am arguing is anything uncaused is uncaused existence with the uncaused existence
                    Seems tautologically true.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                      Correction here; Both world views deal with finite and temporal things of our physical existence. Natural is not a finite temporal thing.
                      What is not finite and temporal is supernatural not natural.

                      Needs more explanation. Science tests its assumptions and presupposition of uniformity and predictability of the nature of our physical existence repeatedly with every theory, hypothesis, and associated research. This results in a consistent predicable world view of our physical existence in which pretty much 98%+ scientists are in agreement as to the general nature of our physical existence, its history and evolution. Unfortunately the religious beliefs of the world lack any such consistency, agreement nor predictability,
                      All knowledge is a matter of what is believed. What is not believed is being rejected.
                      . . . 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

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by 37818 View Post
                        What is not finite and temporal is supernatural not natural.
                        Based on this assumption Natural Law is possibly supernatural.

                        All knowledge is a matter of what is believed. What is not believed is being rejected.
                        That 'Begging the Question' bite you in the butt. It is a totally meaningless response, unless . . . ah of course you are a Hindu and think all the world is an illusion.

                        Please do better.
                        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 Post
                          Based on this assumption Natural Law is possibly supernatural.
                          Why is it an assumption that what is infinite must be supernatural? And I am not speaking of math either.


                          That 'Begging the Question' bite you in the butt. It is a totally meaningless response, unless . . . ah of course you are a Hindu and think all the world is an illusion.

                          Please do better.
                          So it would seem you feel you must resort to false accusation.
                          What question did I beg? Restate the question. I am arguing that in order for anything to be knowledge in anyone's mind, it must be believed. What can you say you know to be true, that you do not believe to be true? You cannot.
                          . . . 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

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by crepuscule View Post
                            Imo yes. The regression as a whole would be uncaused (or uncaused existence, as you call it). Each part would be caused and a cause. What goes for the whole need not go for each part (fallacy of division), and what goes for each part need not go for the whole (fallacy of composition).
                            I am not making either such generalizations. The argument is the whole is uncaused. And the parts are caused.
                            What other thing would the whole regression be? It can't be a cause; you yourself said nothing can be a cause of itself.
                            Well, did we not agree that what is uncaused is not caused? The regression as a whole is uncaused, and all its parts are caused.

                            Yes they are; caused existence.
                            Caused existence is contingent on there being uncaused existence. The regression as a whole is uncaused existence. All the caused existences which comprise the uncaused regression are caused. The caused existences are not uncaused. The whole regression is not caused.
                            I know they are different things but one can be the other, right? Just like swan and white are different things, but one can be the other.
                            Well, is not the uncaused existence of the regression made up of caused existences?
                            Wrong, the regression is not a cause. Each part of it is, but the regression itself not. You keep confusing those.
                            So are you arguing the uncaused regession is not any kind of reason for the infinite set of causes in which there would be no first cause?

                            But do you agree with that point, or do you think God is merely an uncaused first cause?
                            No. First and foremost God is uncaused existence. An uncaused cause is two things. While it is uncaused existence, it is also a cause. Causes are typically temporal and finite. Unless of course you allow an infinite regression with no first cause to have been caused. Which you do not want to conceptually to allow.

                            I borrowed the following and rephrased it:

                            There was always an uncaused regression.
                            The uncaused regression was with the uncaused existence.
                            The uncaused regression was uncaused existence.
                            The uncaused regression was always with the uncaused existence.
                            All causes are in the uncaused regression, and without the uncaused regression there were no causes caused.



                            Seems tautologically true.
                            Yep.
                            . . . 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

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by 37818 View Post
                              Why is it an assumption that what is infinite must be supernatural? And I am not speaking of math either.
                              Whether speaking of math or not the Source of all existence can possibly be Natural or Divine, and from the human perspective this cannot be objectively determined. In both sides of the fence the Theists nor the Philosophical Naturalists can only appeal to a theological/Philosophical belief, and not by the evidence. The assertion as to which is truly infinite source is not objectively verifiable regardless of any use of math.

                              So it would seem you feel you must resort to false accusation.
                              What question did I beg? Restate the question. I am arguing that in order for anything to be knowledge in anyone's mind, it must be believed. What can you say you know to be true, that you do not believe to be true? You cannot.
                              Too confusing to respond to this. Refer to the bold above.
                              Last edited by shunyadragon; 08-05-2017, 07:45 PM.
                              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 Post
                                Whether speaking of math or not the Source of all existence can possibly be Natural or Divine, and from the human perspective this cannot be objectively determined.
                                In other words your whole argument is purely subjective.


                                In both sides of the fence the Theists nor the Philosophical Naturalists can only appeal to a theological/Philosophical belief, and not by the evidence. The assertion as to which is truly infinite source is not objectively verifiable regardless of any use of math.
                                Again, pure subjective speculation on your part.
                                . . . 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

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by whag, Yesterday, 03:01 PM
                                28 responses
                                97 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post whag
                                by whag
                                 
                                Started by whag, 03-17-2024, 04:55 PM
                                21 responses
                                129 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Started by whag, 03-14-2024, 06:04 PM
                                79 responses
                                415 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post alaskazimm  
                                Started by whag, 03-13-2024, 12:06 PM
                                45 responses
                                303 views
                                1 like
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Working...
                                X