The 'best' arguments for atheism and Christianity

[Sparko]

I have said I will ONLY

You mean you said you will accept verifiable evidence but their CAN'T be any.

Whether there is or isn't doesn't matter. We were talking hypotheticals.

In other words you will only "accept" something that you have already decided can never exist. That is the same thing as having already made up your mind and closing it to any change. You are close-minded.

[Sparko]

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

Says the guy who won't accept any evidence for God.

Tassman, until God actually awakens your soul, you are right, nothing will convince you.

[Sparko]

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.

[37818]

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.

I do not think you understand the argument.

Premising what is not believed to be true, not to be true, is simply not being done. The argument is one cannot prove the negative. The burden of proof is always on the affirmative. On the premise that there is no God, can such a premise be shown to be absurd?

[shunyadragon]

I do not think you understand the argument.

Premising what is not believed to be true, not to be true, is simply not being done. The argument is one cannot prove the negative. The burden of proof is always on the affirmative. On the premise that there is no God, can such a premise be shown to be absurd?

If the burden of proof is always on the affirmative than it is the responsibility of Theists to prove that God exists. That would be conclusion, and most likely understood as there is no reason to believe based on the lack of evidence.

Again . . . the premise of the philosophical naturalist argument is not that God does not exist.

The philosophical naturalist does not try to prove the negative. If you believe so please cite specifically where this is the case where they try and prove the negative.

Still waiting . . .

The premise is there is no objective verifiable evidence that other worlds including worlds of God exist other than our physical world.

[Roy]

Good for it.

...
A christian's "job" isn't to convince anyone. We are simply to share the gospel and the facts. It is God's job to convince people.

He may be slacking

[Sparko]

He may be slacking

maybe it just isn't your time yet. :-)

I didn't become a Christian until I was 40 years old. My aunt didn't until she was nearly 70.

[37818]

If the burden of proof is always on the affirmative than it is the responsibility of Theists to prove that God exists. That would be conclusion, and most likely understood as there is no reason to believe based on the lack of evidence.

Again . . . the premise of the philosophical naturalist argument is not that God does not exist.

The philosophical naturalist does not try to prove the negative. If you believe so please cite specifically where this is the case where they try and prove the negative.

Still waiting . . .

The premise is there is no objective verifiable evidence that other worlds including worlds of God exist other than our physical world.

What needs to be shown to exist is never God. In other words, on the premise that there is no God, that premise cannot be shown to be false. Existence exists, and the need for existence to need a God is not. Uncaused existence needs no God. Only if God is the uncaused existence behind all finite existing things is the premise that there is no God absurd. It is absurd to presume no existence. There is existence and therefore a need for an uncaused existence. And you still do not understand this.

[Sparko]

What needs to be shown to exist is never God. In other words, on the premise that there is no God, that premise cannot be shown to be false. Existence exists, and the need for existence to need a God is not. Uncaused existence needs no God. Only if God is the uncaused existence behind all finite existing things is the premise that there is no God absurd. It is absurd to presume no existence. There is existence and therefore a need for an uncaused existence. And you still do not understand this.

To be honest I don't think ANYONE understood that.

[shunyadragon]

What needs to be shown to exist is never God. In other words, on the premise that there is no God, that premise cannot be shown to be false. Existence exists, and the need for existence to need a God is not. Uncaused existence needs no God. Only if God is the uncaused existence behind all finite existing things is the premise that there is no God absurd. It is absurd to presume no existence. There is existence and therefore a need for an uncaused existence. And you still do not understand this.

Not understandable!

Does not address: What are the presuppositions of the argument for philosophical naturalism?

[37818]

To be honest I don't think ANYONE understood that.

Not understandable!

Does not address: What are the presuppositions of the argument for philosophical naturalism?

Uncaused existence needs no God. There is uncaused existence. So unless the uncaused Existence is God . . . there is no God needed. Refute that.

[Tassman]

You mean you said you will accept verifiable evidence but their CAN'T be any.

Whether there is or isn't doesn't matter. We were talking hypotheticals.

In other words you will only "accept" something that you have already decided can never exist.

That is the same thing as having already made up your mind and closing it to any change.

You are close-minded.

You are gullible.

[shunyadragon]

Uncaused existence needs no God. There is uncaused existence. So unless the uncaused Existence is God . . . there is no God needed. Refute that.

Refute which? Your belief is that the uncaused Existence is God. Atheists believe the uncaused existence is not God, but the Natural Nature of our physical existence. These are conclusions from either side of the fence, and not the argument itself.

That is not the issue I brought forward. I believe in God, and do not agree with the atheist view, but I do represent the atheist argument honestly.

What are the presuppositions of the argument for philosophical naturalism?

[37818]

Refute which? Your belief is that the uncaused Existence is God. Atheists believe the uncaused existence is not God, but the Natural Nature of our physical existence. These are conclusions from either side of the fence, and not the argument itself.

So is there a third option between uncaused existence being God or not being God?

That is not the issue I brought forward. I believe in God, and do not agree with the atheist view, but I do represent the atheist argument honestly.

What is the atheist argument for there not being any God in your honest view of it? It has been my understanding atheist argument is mere denial in some form. No evidence, no reason, for any gods etc.

What are the presuppositions of the argument for philosophical naturalism?

It is my understanding, the mere denial of anything beyond what is regarded as natural. Do you have a better answer?

[Sparko]

Uncaused existence needs no God. There is uncaused existence. So unless the uncaused Existence is God . . . there is no God needed. Refute that.

playing devil's advocate...

You would first need to prove "there is uncaused existence"

and, this sounds just like an athiest's argument that there is no god because they believe the universe has no cause (or like Shuny believes is caused by an eternal meta universe)