The 'best' arguments for atheism and Christianity

[37818]

What is in evidence regarding theistic beliefs is that everyone has some kind of idea of God. Even atheists have some kind of ideas for God for having reasons for not believing in any God.

I would pretty much agree with this. As an atheist, however, I do not find myself "creating an idea of a god" and then setting out to disbelieve or disprove it. Rather, I look at the various formulations for "god" presented by the various religions of the world, and I ask myself, "could such a being exist" and "does such a being exist." I am atheist because the answer to one or both of those questions, for each definition of "god" I have explored, is "I do not think so."

I do recognize, however, that a lot of people have come to a different conclusion than I.

Uncaused Existence is the identity of God. Uncaused Existence as omnipresent and infinite and in need of nothing else. All other things in what ever way being caused are contingent on Uncaused Existence. Uncaused Cause is contingent on Uncaused Existence. Uncaused Cause and Uncaused Existence are two different things. Even though they are considered to both be the one God.

I have absolutely no clue what to do with this, or how it relates to my original post. If you're describing the god you believe in, OK. I'm not sure you've given ME a reason to believe this being actually exists. I'm not sure if that is what you were trying to do...?

Ultimately, there is an uncaused existence. Uncaused existence has no cause and so in need of no God. So, unless Uncaused Existence is the very identity of God, there is none.

crepuscule understanding this argued,

No, it need not be God.

Tassman posed the question,

Why can’t “uncaused existence” apply to an infinite universe?

Traditional theism apologetics sets forth arguments to prove the "existence" for God. The problem glossed over is that "existence" does not need the proof in those arguments, God does. Effectively and unwittingly those traditional arguments are denying who and "what" God is. Existence not needing any proof.

[shunyadragon]

Ultimately, there is an uncaused existence. Uncaused existence has no cause and so in need of no God. So, unless Uncaused Existence is the very identity of God, there is none.

It is possible that the uncaused cause of our physical existence is simply Natural Law. Can you provide an argument that this cannot be so?

[crepuscule]

crepuscule understanding this argued,

No, it need not be God.

And still awaiting an answer.

[carpedm9587]

Ultimately, there is an uncaused existence. Uncaused existence has no cause and so in need of no God. So, unless Uncaused Existence is the very identity of God, there is none.

So your first few words are a problem for me, because we simply do not know them to be true. The world of quantum physics is unearthing some mind bending things that defy our macro-sense of the universe and up-end the whole concept of causality. We also simply, currently, have no way to "peer beyond" the moment of the "big bang" to see what (if anything) was before. Is the universe as it is because it always has been, and this is one of a phase? Is the universe one of many, stretching back inifinitely. Does time itself begin as the universe begins, making the universe itself an uncaused cause?

In the end - the answer is we don't know. I have found that many religions seem to rush to fill "we don't know" with "god did it." Perhap that is how the entire notion of god began.

For myself, I am OK with "I don't know," and willing to wait to see what we will understand tomorrow.

[37818]

And still awaiting an answer.

Ah, God need not be God is what you are arguing.

Actually only need two premises. One, that there is no God. And the second, that the uncaused existence cannot be God.

Now the question then becomes how can any theist put forth an argument to make the premise the "the uncaused existence cannot be God" to be an absurdity? Uncaused existence does not need any God.

[37818]

It is possible that the uncaused cause of our physical existence is simply Natural Law. Can you provide an argument that this cannot be so?

An uncaused cause is contingent upon Uncaused Existence. Cause and existence are two different things.

[carpedm9587]

An uncaused cause is contingent upon Uncaused Existence. Cause and existence are two different things.

You may be in a philosophical area that is over my head, but you are leaning very hard on this uncaused cause vs. uncaused existence. I understand how I use the words, but I am not sure how you are using them. For me, a thing has existence, but may not be a causal force - so a cause and existence are clearly distinct. But a causal force must have existence - or it simply cannot be a causal force.

So if we assume (which we cannot show) that there has to be a moment in time in which there was nothing, and then there was something, that something is an uncaused existence. If it is also a causal force, it is also an uncaused cause. Alternatively, if one presumes that something always (eternally) existed, and that being is a causal force (e.g., god), then it is likewise an uncaused cause with uncaused existence. I think most atheists would look at that and say, "why does it have to be a god?" Why is it not possible that the energy of the universe IS that uncaused existence/cause? We do not know what "preceeds" the so-called "Big Bang," so we are not in a position to rule that out.

We also know that studies in quantum mechanics are suggesting a causal world that defies much of what we think of as causal associations in the macro universe, suggesting a whole realm of possibilities that have simply not been ruled out. None of this proves god does not exist; it merely points out that a leap to "god is the uncaused cause" is simply not warranted - at least not on the basis of the traditional causal arguments.

[37818]

Ultimately, there is an uncaused existence. . . .

So your first few words are a problem for me, because we simply do not know them to be true.

What does not exist is not true. Existence is presumed.

The world of quantum physics is unearthing some mind bending things that defy our macro-sense of the universe and up-end the whole concept of causality. We also simply, currently, have no way to "peer beyond" the moment of the "big bang" to see what (if anything) was before. Is the universe as it is because it always has been, and this is one of a phase? Is the universe one of many, stretching back inifinitely. Does time itself begin as the universe begins, making the universe itself an uncaused cause?

In order for there to be a cause there has to be an existence.

In the end - the answer is we don't know. I have found that many religions seem to rush to fill "we don't know" with "god did it." Perhaps that is how the entire notion of god began.

You have to begin with an existence. Existence precedes cause.

For myself, I am OK with "I don't know," and willing to wait to see what we will understand tomorrow.

As I have argued, the only proper identity for God is Uncaused Existence. Cause being contingent upon existing. To have no God one has to presume God is not God. That is, disallow God's identity. Premise that Uncaused Existence is not God.

[37818]

You may be in a philosophical area that is over my head, but you are leaning very hard on this uncaused cause vs. uncaused existence. I understand how I use the words, but I am not sure how you are using them. For me, a thing has existence, but may not be a causal force - so a cause and existence are clearly distinct. But a causal force must have existence - or it simply cannot be a causal force.

Existence is presumed. Uncaused existence is really what is presumed.

So if we assume (which we cannot show) that there has to be a moment in time in which there was nothing, and then there was something, that something is an uncaused existence. If it is also a causal force, it is also an uncaused cause. Alternatively, if one presumes that something always (eternally) existed, and that being is a causal force (e.g., god), then it is likewise an uncaused cause with uncaused existence. I think most atheists would look at that and say, "why does it have to be a god?" Why is it not possible that the energy of the universe IS that uncaused existence/cause? We do not know what "precedes" the so-called "Big Bang," so we are not in a position to rule that out.

The question of nothingness. No time, no space, not light nor dark - not anything. Which never existed. So an existence always existed - hence the Uncaused Existence. Since there was never nothing.

We also know that studies in quantum mechanics are suggesting a causal world that defies much of what we think of as causal associations in the macro universe, suggesting a whole realm of possibilities that have simply not been ruled out. None of this proves god does not exist; it merely points out that a leap to "god is the uncaused cause" is simply not warranted - at least not on the basis of the traditional causal arguments.

Quantum mechanics is a property of our known caused existence. The prospect of there always being some kind of cause and there never being any first cause. We still have an Uncaused Existence.

Space is a type of existence. We understand space by distance between things. The things in space are not the space. In the same way, things in existence are not the existence.

[crepuscule]

Ah, God need not be God is what you are arguing.

No, for the umpteenth time, I’m arguing an uncaused existence need not be God, i.e. God is not defined by just uncaused existence.

Now the question then becomes how can any theist put forth an argument to make the premise the "the uncaused existence cannot be God" to be an absurdity? Uncaused existence does not need any God.

First, the premise should read the uncaused existence need not be God.

And second, that’s for the theist to answer, isn’t it?

[37818]

No, for the umpteenth time, I’m arguing an uncaused existence need not be God, i.e. God is not defined by just uncaused existence.

Hmm. So uncaused existence need not be infinite, omnipresent or anything else, such as what is fundamentally the meaning that should be attached to the idea of God.

First, the premise should read the uncaused existence need not be God.

OK. But that would not disallow the term 'God' being understood to be synonymous with being the 'uncaused existence.'

And second, that’s for the theist to answer, isn’t it?

Yes. The burden of proof would be upon the theist to show that disallowing the concept of 'uncaused existence' being applied to the concept of 'God' would be an absurdity, an impossibility.


The simple truth being that 'uncaused existence' does not need any kind of God.

[crepuscule]

Hmm. So uncaused existence need not be infinite, omnipresent or anything else, such as what is fundamentally the meaning that should be attached to the idea of God.

Yep. If any of those qualites (and don’t forget wilfully creating) are the identity of God while not of uncaused existence, then uncaused existence is not God.

OK. But that would not disallow the term 'God' being understood to be synonymous with the concept of 'God' being the 'uncaused existence.'

No it wouldn’t, just like ‘lion’ is synonymous with ‘lion’ being a 'mammal'. But that does not mean God is synonymous with uncaused existence, just like ‘lion’ is not synonymous with ‘mammal’.

Yes. The burden of proof would be upon the theist to show that disallowing the concept of 'uncaused existence' being applied to the concept of 'God' would be an absurdity, an impossibility.

No, you got it the wrong way around again. If God exists, He is uncaused existence. The theist's burden is to show uncaused existence existing without God existing is an absurdity.

The important bit here is that until the theist does that, the argument from uncaused existence fails as an argument for the existence of God

The simple truth being that 'uncaused existence' does not need any kind of God.

Nor need it be God.

[37818]

Yep. If any of those qualites (and don’t forget wilfully creating) are the identity of God while not of uncaused existence, then uncaused existence is not God.

Well, Uncaused Existence is the fundamental identity of God which for the reasons you stated reject.

No it wouldn’t, just like ‘lion’ is synonymous with ‘lion’ being a 'mammal'. But that does not mean God is synonymous with uncaused existence, just like ‘lion’ is not synonymous with ‘mammal’.

Yeah, being a 'mammal' does not make a 'lion' a 'lion.' Yet that argument does not negate the fact that God is the 'Uncaused Existence.' Upon which all other existent things are contingent, regardless whether they be caused or uncaused.

No, you got it the wrong way around again. If God exists, He is uncaused existence. The theist's burden is to show uncaused existence existing without God existing is an absurdity.

That is because you deny the only valid and fundamental identity of God. Your view of God is false, otherwise it would not be possible to be an atheist.

The important bit here is that until the theist does that, the argument from uncaused existence fails as an argument for the existence of God.

Not really. Since God would have to not be God.

Nor need it be God.

Like I said and you deny, in that, God would not need to be God is really your argument. You denying that 'Uncaused Existence' being God's fundamental identity. Which you must disallow to remain an atheist.

You think the argument "need not be" is valid, when in fact it is not. It is what God is.

[JimL]

Well, Uncaused Existence is the fundamental identity of God which for the reasons you stated reject.
Yeah, being a 'mammal' does not make a 'lion' a 'lion.' Yet that argument does not negate the fact that God is the 'Uncaused Existence.' Upon which all other existent things are contingent, regardless whether they be caused or uncaused.
That is because you deny the only valid and fundamental identity of God. Your view of God is false, otherwise it would not be possible to be an atheist.
Not really. Since God would have to not be God.

Like I said and you deny, in that, God would not need to be God is really your argument. You denying that 'Uncaused Existence' being God's fundamental identity. Which you must disallow to remain an atheist.

You think the argument "need not be" is valid, when in fact it is not. It is what God is.

Uncaused existence is not what defines god, all that uncaused existence defines is a something that exists eternally, like the eternal substance of all existing things.

[Tassman]

Well, Uncaused Existence is the fundamental identity of God

This is your unevidenced assumption, but it need not be God. It could just as easily be characteristic of the natural universe. There is at least some evidence of the latter, there is none for the former.