The 'best' arguments for atheism and Christianity

[crepuscule]

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"

Here's some links that define contingent the way I used it:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contingency_(philosophy)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Possible_world,
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/leibniz-modal/

And I take it that since you now switch to ad hominems you don’t have any contentual objections.

[Tassman]

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

No you wouldn't. You've said that you would believe in the demonstrably non-existent Blue Fairy if you thought she had granted your wishes.

[shunyadragon]

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"

If you wish to create your own definitions to suite your own view only, and mean 'ice cream' it will fail to communicate with others in the English language, regardless of the argument for and against atheism, nor theism, nor Christianity.

Read crepuscule's last post.

[Adrift]

If you wish to create your own definitions to suite your own view it will fail to communicate with others in the English language, regardless of the argument for and against atheism, nor theism, nor Christianity.

Read crepuscule's last post.

This coming from you is the height of hilarity.

[shunyadragon]

This coming from you is the height of hilarity.

[Sparko]

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

well for me, being a christian, it would probably be evidence that Jesus did not rise from the dead. Or evidence that the bible was written as a fake or scam.

Or maybe evidence that this universe really is a computer simulation like some scientists claim.

The point is if I were presented strong enough evidence, I would give up being a Christian. I would not just believe because I want to keep believing despite knowing the truth.

Yet some atheists, like Tassman, would accept no proof that would change their mind.

[Sparko]

Here's some links that define contingent the way I used it:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contingency_(philosophy)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Possible_world,
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/leibniz-modal/

And I take it that since you now switch to ad hominems you don’t have any contentual objections.

uh no, those are not using contingency like you define it. Or were using it.

A person is not contingent on their decisions. They don't become a different being just because they choose to do or not do something. I am still the same me whether I make a paper airplane or don't make it. Me making a decision doesn't mean I am contingent on the decision. Nor my will. My will determines what I end up deciding, but that doesn't make me contingent on it.

I am sorry but to me, your argument is just nonsense. Everyone seems to think the same thing.

[Sparko]

No you wouldn't. You've said that you would believe in the demonstrably non-existent Blue Fairy if you thought she had granted your wishes.

If she existed to grant my wishes how could she be non-existent, dumbass? I follow the evidence. If the evidence says God doesn't exist, then I would not believe in God.

[crepuscule]

uh no, those are not using contingency like you define it. Or were using it.

Yes they are. Contingent means existing in a possible world, but not in another. That’s what I used throughout.

A person is not contingent on their decisions. They don't become a different being just because they choose to do or not do something. I am still the same me whether I make a paper airplane or don't make it.

C’mon Sparko, your will to fold that plane is clearly not the same as your will not to fold that plane. If they are exactly the same, how come one causes you to fold, while the other –exactly the same, you say- doesn’t cause you to fold? Whence the difference?

Just as folding a plane is not the same as not folding a plane, and deciding to fold is not the same as deciding not to fold, willing to fold is not the same as not willing to fold.

I am sorry but to me, your argument is just nonsense. Everyone seems to think the same thing.

I’d say that given your responses (and several other’s) you still don’t know what the argument is.

[Sparko]

I’d say that given your responses (and several other’s) you still don’t know what the argument is.

Yeah that pretty much sums it up. You presented a word salad as the "best argument for atheism" that nobody can understand because it doesn't make any sense to anyone but you. Apparently because you redefine words until they mean whatever you want them to.

So no gold star on the "best atheist argument" there. Maybe the "worst?"

we will have to see.

[crepuscule]

Apparently because you redefine words until they mean whatever you want them to.

No I don’t, you have already been told it’s a well established definition. Since you apparently couldn't be bothered to follow the links I did one for you: from https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/modality-varieties/: a proposition is necessary just in case it is true in all possible worlds, 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.

And have you figured it out yet? Is a God that has a will to cause a universe exactly the same as a God that has no will to cause?

[Tassman]

If she existed to grant my wishes how could she be non-existent, dumbass? I follow the evidence. If the evidence says God doesn't exist, then I would not believe in God.

But we know that the Blue Fairy doesn't exist. She is the imaginative creation of the 19th century fairy-tale author Carlo Collodi as a part of the Pinocchio story. So any "wish-granting" by this fictional entity could only be your misinterpretation of a perfectly natural occurrence. And the same applies to your fictional god and his "miracles".

[Charles]

"And when the LORD thy God hath delivered it into thine hands, thou shalt smite every male thereof with the edge of the sword:
But the women, and the little ones, and the cattle, and all that is in the city, even all the spoil thereof, shalt thou take unto thyself; and thou shalt eat the spoil of thine enemies, which the LORD thy God hath given thee.
Thus shalt thou do unto all the cities which are very far off from thee, which are not of the cities of these nations.
But of the cities of these people, which the LORD thy God doth give thee for an inheritance, thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth:"

Deuteronomy 20, 13-16

I would say the Bible does give you good reason not to believe.

[Sparko]

No I don’t, you have already been told it’s a well established definition. Since you apparently couldn't be bothered to follow the links I did one for you: from https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/modality-varieties/: a proposition is necessary just in case it is true in all possible worlds, 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.

And have you figured it out yet? Is a God that has a will to cause a universe exactly the same as a God that has no will to cause?

"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"

[Sparko]

But we know that the Blue Fairy doesn't exist. She is the imaginative creation of the 19th century fairy-tale author Carlo Collodi as a part of the Pinocchio story. So any "wish-granting" by this fictional entity could only be your misinterpretation of a perfectly natural occurrence. And the same applies to your fictional god and his "miracles".

Yet 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.