The 'best' arguments for atheism and Christianity

[37818]

If we premises something which does not exist to not exist, can such a premise be shown to be absurd?

[crepuscule]

"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"

Contingent can mean dependent upon, although this is almost always in combination with on, which I have not used. In the philosophical/metaphysical sense (which as said is the one I use) it means may or may not exist. The difference between the two is explained here: http://wikidiff.com/dependent/contingent. A quote from another website (http://www.philosophyofreligion.info...m-contingency/

[Sparko]

Contingent can mean dependent upon, although this is almost always in combination with on, which I have not used. In the philosophical/metaphysical sense (which as said is the one I use) it means may or may not exist. The difference between the two is explained here: http://wikidiff.com/dependent/contingent. A quote from another website (http://www.philosophyofreligion.info...m-contingency/God, too, is often thought to be a necessary being, i.e. a being that logically could not have failed to exist.

Well crep, I have learned long ago not to waste my time on people who are willfully ignorant to the point that they will never understand how wrong they are. You seem to suffer from what is known as Dunning-Kruger syndrome. So rather than continue to waste your time and mine, I will just leave it at this:

1. The quote in your very own post disagrees with you.

2. Not one person in this thread thinks your "argument" makes a lick of sense, nor has it convinced even one person to become an atheist. So good luck with that "best argument" and let me know how it works out for you.

[Jedidiah]

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.

Sparko, you can not argue with a guy who assumes the answer before you even start.

[Tassman]

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.

Quite the reverse! It is you who has predetermined that an unsubstantiated world of spirits and miracle-working gods exists, whereas I accept reality as empirically verified by scientific methodology. Anything other than this is a faith-belief, nothing more.

Sparko, you can not argue with a guy who assumes the answer before you even start.

On the contrary, you cannot argue with a guy who assumes God exists as the starting point of his argument.

[crepuscule]

1. The quote in your very own post disagrees with you.

2. Not one person in this thread thinks your "argument" makes a lick of sense, nor has it convinced even one person to become an atheist. So good luck with that "best argument" and let me know how it works out for you.

[Sparko]

You have said you would not accept any verifiable evidence for the supernatural. You are busted, Tassman. You are close-minded.

[Sparko]

The best argument for Christianity is the one made by the Holy Spirit. Until the Holy Spirit touches you, no mere words will ever convince you, nor will you understand it.

[shunyadragon]

If we premises something which does not exist to not exist, can such a premise be shown to be absurd?

If you are referring to premises concerning the existence of God, from the humanist (atheist or agnostic) perspective. They do not normally make the presupposition that God does not exist[/U].The only presupposition that I know of is that Methodological Naturalism is the standard of the objective verifiable evidence and the falsification by scientific methods. The base their conclusions on this premise that there is no objective verifiable evidence that other worlds exist beyond the physical world, including the worlds of Gods, therefore Philosophical Naturalism.

They do not try and prove nor assume the negative.

[psstein]

If you are referring to premises concerning the existence of God, from the humanist (atheist or agnostic) perspective. They do not normally make the presupposition that God does not exist[/U].The only presupposition that I know of is that Methodological Naturalism is the standard of the objective verifiable evidence and the falsification by scientific methods. The base their conclusions on this premise that there is no objective verifiable evidence that other worlds exist beyond the physical world, including the worlds of Gods, therefore Philosophical Naturalism.

They do not try and prove nor assume the negative.

That's a problematic argument. The success of methodological naturalism doesn't inherently entail the truth of metaphysical naturalism. You have to argue from one to the other, not just assert.

[crepuscule]

Until the Holy Spirit touches you, no mere words will ever convince you, nor will you understand it.

I'll just wait for that to happen then.

[Tassman]

You have said you would not accept any verifiable evidence for the supernatural. You are busted, Tassman. You are close-minded.

I have said I will ONLY

[Tassman]

The best argument for Christianity is the one made by the Holy Spirit. Until the Holy Spirit touches you, no mere words will ever convince you, nor will you understand it.

That's not an argument at all, it's purely subjective woo.

[shunyadragon]

That's a problematic argument. The success of methodological naturalism doesn't inherently entail the truth of metaphysical naturalism. You have to argue from one to the other, not just assert.

Please reread my post. I said, 'they (Philosophical Naturalists) base their conclusions on . . .' Yes, the success methodological Naturalism does not inherently entail the truth of Metaphysical Naturalism. The belief in Philosophical Naturalism is a philosophical conclusion not a scientific based conclusion.

[Roy]

The best argument for Christianity is the one made by the Holy Spirit. Until the Holy Spirit touches you, no mere words will ever convince you, nor will you understand it.

By an eerie coincidence, that's also an argument for the Cosmic Yoyo. Until you are touched by its immaterial string, no mere words will ever convince you, nor will you understand it.