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

Atheism irrefutable.

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

  • Atheism irrefutable.

    Atheism irrefutable is possible based on the common theistic arguments for the existence of God.

    Originally posted by Apologiaphoenix View Post
    . . . I want to remind Christians that it was possible to make empirical arguments for the existence of God based on the observance of nature . . . .
    In all such arguments existence is not what needs proof, God does.

    The argument can be made that a god is not necessary based on self evident truth. A theist needs to answer the question why truth needs a god to be true?

    For example, the simple concept of 1 + 1 = 2. Why does that need God to be true?
    . . . 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

  • #2
    huh?

    Are you arguing FOR atheism now?

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Sparko View Post
      huh?

      Are you arguing FOR atheism now?
      No, he's devised another argument against it - he's just dodging around the question of existence by positing that nothing could be true without God. It's circular and only compelling to Christians. I actually agree with the point - but as an argument against atheism, it is a non-starter.

      The stupid title seems to assume that it's possible that you cannot refute atheism merely because you cannot prove the existence of God - empirically. But since the converse is also true, so what?
      "He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot

      "Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman

      My Personal Blog

      My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)

      Quill Sword

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Teallaura View Post
        No, he's devised another argument against it - he's just dodging around the question of existence by positing that nothing could be true without God. It's circular and only compelling to Christians. I actually agree with the point - but as an argument against atheism, it is a non-starter.

        The stupid title seems to assume that it's possible that you cannot refute atheism merely because you cannot prove the existence of God - empirically. But since the converse is also true, so what?
        Thanks for being the 37818 interpreter. I can't understand his posts half of the time.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Sparko View Post
          huh?

          Are you arguing FOR atheism now?
          Originally posted by Teallaura View Post
          No, he's devised another argument against it - he's just dodging around the question of existence by positing that nothing could be true without God. It's circular and only compelling to Christians. I actually agree with the point - but as an argument against atheism, it is a non-starter.

          The stupid title seems to assume that it's possible that you cannot refute atheism merely because you cannot prove the existence of God - empirically. But since the converse is also true, so what?
          Originally posted by Sparko View Post
          Thanks for being the 37818 interpreter. I can't understand his posts half of the time.
          The argument is simple, existence does not need proof.

          As for God, He has an identity. The first commandment of the ten is who God is: "I am the LORD thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage."

          God`s identity being the self Existent existence, which is the meaning of His Name.

          The Apostle Paul said of God, "In Him we live and move and have our existence." (Acts 17:28a.)

          The God of Israel is invisible and omnipresent. And the Son of God is His visible agent by which we who are redeemed know God (John 14:6; John 1:12-14, 18; Colossians 1:15, 18; 2 Corinthians 4:3-4; Hebrews 1:3, John 1:3-4, 9-10).
          Last edited by 37818; 07-20-2018, 02:18 PM.
          . . . 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


          • #6
            Originally posted by 37818 View Post
            The argument is simple, existence does not need proof.

            As for God, He has an identity. The first commandment of the ten is who God is: "I am the LORD thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage."

            God`s identity being the self Existent existence, which is the meaning of His Name.

            The Apostle Paul say of God, "in Him we live and move and have our existence." (Acts 17:28a.)

            The God of Israel is invisible and omnipresent. And the Son of God is His visible agent by which we who are redeemed know God (John 14:6; John 1:12-14, 18; Colossians 1:15, 18; 2 Corinthians 4:3-4; Hebrews 1:3, John 1:3-4, 9-10).
            all you did was state a claim "Existence doesn't need proof" and then list who God is. How is that an argument at all?

            I could just say:
            Existence doesn't need proof.
            Santa Claus lives at the North Pole and has a flying sleigh. He has elves that work for him and 8 tiny reindeer.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Sparko View Post
              all you did was state a claim "Existence doesn't need proof" and then list who God is. How is that an argument at all?
              Well, if you were to show someone the invisible God how would you do it. God being invisible and all?


              I could just say:
              Existence doesn't need proof.
              Santa Claus lives at the North Pole and has a flying sleigh. He has elves that work for him and 8 tiny reindeer.
              How would that show that the non-existent Santa Clause had a real 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


              • #8
                This is one of an endless chain of assertions by 37818 that his circular argument is conclusive, which it is only another version of the same circular argument to justify what he believes.
                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


                • #9
                  Stop that - you know I hate agreeing with you, Shuny!




                  "He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot

                  "Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman

                  My Personal Blog

                  My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)

                  Quill Sword

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by 37818 View Post
                    The argument is simple, existence does not need proof.

                    As for God, He has an identity. The first commandment of the ten is who God is: "I am the LORD thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage."

                    God`s identity being the self Existent existence, which is the meaning of His Name.

                    The Apostle Paul said of God, "In Him we live and move and have our existence." (Acts 17:28a.)

                    The God of Israel is invisible and omnipresent. And the Son of God is His visible agent by which we who are redeemed know God (John 14:6; John 1:12-14, 18; Colossians 1:15, 18; 2 Corinthians 4:3-4; Hebrews 1:3, John 1:3-4, 9-10).
                    This is only convincing to those who already accept God's existence. That you don't accept Santa's existence doesn't make him non-existent - Sparky's right, the argument works just as well for Santa BECAUSE it starts with the a priori assumption of God's existence. It's just as valid to start with the assumption of Santa's existence when everyone already believes he exists.

                    It's perfectly fine to begin with an a priori assumption as long as 1) it's not your conclusion and 2) everyone agrees with it. In this case, you're running into problems with that second one.

                    You can only just assume God exists when arguing with other theists. It's not fair - or compelling - to argue that way with atheists and expect them to agree*.






































                    *The one exception being when they accept the premise purely for the sake of arguing - that's necessary when arguing what God is like - about His nature.
                    "He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot

                    "Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman

                    My Personal Blog

                    My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)

                    Quill Sword

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                      Thanks for being the 37818 interpreter. I can't understand his posts half of the time.
                      He skips a LOT of steps - it's a lot like interpreting for a teenage girl who just broke up with her boyfriend and is hyped up on ice cream.
                      "He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot

                      "Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman

                      My Personal Blog

                      My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)

                      Quill Sword

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                        This is one of an endless chain of assertions by 37818 that his circular argument is conclusive, which it is only another version of the same circular argument to justify what he believes.
                        What is that circular argument being made?
                        . . . 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


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by 37818 View Post
                          What is that circular argument being made?
                          In all such arguments existence is not what needs proof, God does.

                          Our physical existence simply exists by the objective verifiable evidence, but for God there is no objective verifiable evidence to demonstrate nor prove (?) God's existence.

                          God`s identity being the self Existent existence, which is the meaning of His Name.
                          First, what is the proof of God's existence?

                          Second, a name does not determine 'God`s identity being the self Existent existence.'

                          This a very circular assertion without and coherent argument.
                          Last edited by shunyadragon; 07-21-2018, 09:59 AM.
                          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


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by 37818 View Post
                            Atheism irrefutable is possible based on the common theistic arguments for the existence of God.



                            In all such arguments existence is not what needs proof, God does.

                            The argument can be made that a god is not necessary based on self evident truth. A theist needs to answer the question why truth needs a god to be true?

                            For example, the simple concept of 1 + 1 = 2. Why does that need God to be true?
                            Okay, I'll bite. Why does the concept of 1+1=2 need a god to exist in order to be true? Or is that even what you're saying?

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Teallaura View Post
                              He skips a LOT of steps - it's a lot like interpreting for a teenage girl who just broke up with her boyfriend and is hyped up on ice cream.
                              What steps do you think are being skipped? Umcaused existence needs no gods. And what ever needs proof of existence is not God.
                              . . . 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
                              39 responses
                              162 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post whag
                              by whag
                               
                              Started by whag, 03-17-2024, 04:55 PM
                              21 responses
                              130 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                              Started by whag, 03-14-2024, 06:04 PM
                              80 responses
                              426 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post tabibito  
                              Started by whag, 03-13-2024, 12:06 PM
                              45 responses
                              303 views
                              1 like
                              Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                              Started by rogue06, 12-26-2023, 11:05 AM
                              406 responses
                              2,507 views
                              2 likes
                              Last Post tabibito  
                              Working...
                              X