The 'best' arguments for atheism and Christianity

[Sparko]

and then you went on to say that there never could be any scientific evidence for the supernatural. duh.


I don't know why you keep trying to both claim you will accept evidence for the supernatural and then denying it in the next breath. Either you are insane or just stupid.

Either way, I am done with this. You have already shown to everyone that you are close-minded and have already made up your mind about God and nothing can ever change your mind on the matter. No evidence can ever be good enough. So debating the existence of God or the truth of the bible with you is useless and a waste of time. You demand evidence that you would never accept.

That was the point I was making and that you have proven over and over in this thread. Thank you. You may go.

[seer]

and then you went on to say that there never could be any scientific evidence for the supernatural. duh.


I don't know why you keep trying to both claim you will accept evidence for the supernatural and then denying it in the next breath. Either you are insane or just stupid.

Either way, I am done with this. You have already shown to everyone that you are close-minded and have already made up your mind about God and nothing can ever change your mind on the matter. No evidence can ever be good enough. So debating the existence of God or the truth of the bible with you is useless and a waste of time. You demand evidence that you would never accept.

That was the point I was making and that you have proven over and over in this thread. Thank you. You may go.

I wonder if he will believe in God then...

And I saw a great white throne, and Him that sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away; and there was found no place for them. And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.

[Jedidiah]

. . . What is the atheist argument for there not being any God in your honest view of it?

The potter is not inside the cup so he must not be real.

[37818]

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)

Either there is an uncaused existence or there would need be an infinite regress of caused existences. Which the question then comes what would be the cause of there being no first caused existence?

[Tassman]

and then you went on to say that there never could be any scientific evidence for the supernatural.


I don't know why you keep trying to both claim you will accept evidence for the supernatural and then denying it in the next breath. Either you are insane or just stupid.

Either way, I am done with this. You have already shown to everyone that you are close-minded and have already made up your mind about God and nothing can ever change your mind on the matter. No evidence can ever be good enough.

OTOH, for the gullible ANY

So debating the existence of God or the truth of the bible with you is useless and a waste of time. You demand evidence that you would never accept.

That was the point I was making and that you have proven over and over in this thread.

So, for the likes of you, not accepting unverified, logically incoherent claims is being closed-minded. Some would say it is being rational.

Thank you. You may go.

You're so funny, Sparky.

[crepuscule]

Which the question then comes what would be the cause of there being no first caused existence?

Wait a minute; if something does notnon

[37818]

Wait a minute; if something does notnon

If something does not exist, there also would be no cause for it. Something which does not exist is of course also uncaused. Now an infinite regression of causes would have no first cause. Now the cause of no first cause would be an uncaused cause. That uncaused cause is evidenced by there being no first cause. Also would indicate an uncaused existence in which the regression of causes with no first cause has their existence.

It would seem that the argument can be made what is uncaused does not exist. But then there can only be caused existence. But an infinite regression of caused existence has an uncaused existence for the regression. Then the regression would not exist. Therefore there has to be uncaused existence in any case.

Now existence and cause are two different things.

An uncaused existence arguably needs no God having no cause.

And on the premise that God is not the uncaused existence there would be no God.

Also a cause is typically finite and temporal. And an uncaused cause of the infinite regression of causes with no first cause would be infinite and eternal. Making that uncaused cause to be not finite and temporal. Sense all causes are finite and temporal, the uncaused cause would be no cause at all.

Now if the concept of God is synonymous for uncaused existence, then to say there is no God is to claim effectively there is no existence, and that would be absurd.

And any concept of an uncaused cause would have to be two things in order to be an uncaued cause by being both (1)uncaused existence (uncaused being eternal and existence being effectively infinite) and finite and temporal in being (2) a cause of finite and temporal things to be a cause in any way. Even an infinite regression of causes with no first cause. The causes all of which are finite and temporal.

[shunyadragon]

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)

This does not reflect my belief. I believe our physical existence including all possible universes is Created by and eternally exists with God and reflects the attributes of God in a physical form. God is the cause.

I believe the atheists belief is fundamentally based on the lack of objective verifiable evidence of any cause or any world beyond the world, including worlds of Gods, of our physical existence.

[crepuscule]

Well that's a lot, and for quite a bit I don't know what you're talking about. Some remarks however:

Now the cause of no first cause would be an uncaused cause.

any cause is by definition itself caused and thus not an uncaused cause. Why would in an infinite regression the absence of a first cause have a cause, let alone an uncaused one?

That uncaused cause is evidenced by there being no first cause.

Quite the opposite. There being no first cause is proof there is no uncaused cause.

Also would indicate an uncaused existence in which the regression of causes with no first cause has their existence.

You do not quite seem to grasp what an infinite regression is. If an infinite regression was caused, it wouldn't be an infinite regression of causes, would it?

It would seem that the argument can be made what is uncaused does not exist.

I know of no such argument.

But an infinite regression of caused existence has an uncaused existence for the regression.

Depends on what you mean by an uncaused existence. Existence as in the regression has existence? Then yes. Existence as in an existing underlying cause? Then no.

Now if the concept of God is synonymous for uncaused existence, (...)

The concept God is not synonymous with uncaused existence.

[37818]

any cause is by definition itself caused and thus not an uncaused cause. Why would in an infinite regression the absence of a first cause have a cause, let alone an uncaused one?

An infinite regression of causes all of which have a cause. There being no first cause in the regression. It at the very least is uncaused as a whole.

It is not self caused. It has no cause as a whole. Such a regression would have to exist in an uncaused existence as a whole. The reason for such a regression to be no reason? What do you want to name the reason for there being no first cause? The whole regression has no beginning. The regression is an uncaused regression. The reason is being the regression has no cause though it is made up of causes. It seems that you do not want to admit the reason by the label, "uncaused cause."
So what you have then, uncaused existence and an uncaused regression as opposed to an uncaused cause being that all causes are caused.

Quite the opposite. There being no first cause is proof there is no uncaused cause.

You want the regression to be the uncaused, it not having a cause. A regression for no reason? Uncaused existence is its own reason being it is self existent. So the uncaused regression is contingent on uncaused existence.

You do not quite seem to grasp what an infinite regression is. If an infinite regression was caused, it wouldn't be an infinite regression of causes, would it?

An infinite regression is made of of finite and temporal causes with no first cause. Such a thing is nevertheless contingent on uncaused existence for the regression to be uncaused.

I know of no such argument.

That argument is not being made. Certainly what does not exist would always not be anything caused. Effectively uncaused in not having any real existence. Square circles, 4 sided triangles, 1 + 1 not being equal to 2, etc.

Depends on what you mean by an uncaused existence. Existence as in the regression has existence? Then yes. Existence as in an existing underlying cause? Then no.

Nothingness has no existence. There would always be uncaused existence. All causes have a caused existence, or what is caused would not be caused.

The concept God is not synonymous with uncaused existence.

Then there is no God. The only "thing" which can be God in anyway is the uncaused Existence. All other notions of a God are fantasy. God is uncaused being.

[crepuscule]

It is not self caused. It has no cause as a whole. Such a regression would have to exist in an uncaused existence as a whole. The reason for such a regression to be no reason? What do you want to name the reason for there being no first cause? The whole regression has no beginning. The regression is an uncaused regression. The reason is being the regression has no cause though it is made up of causes. It seems that you do not want to admit the reason by the label, "uncaused cause."
So what you have then, uncaused existence and an uncaused regression as opposed to an uncaused cause being that all causes are caused.

Sorry, losing me again there. It was you who said now the cause of no first cause would be an uncaused cause which I took meant the absence of a first cause required an (uncaused) cause.

An infinite regression is made of of finite and temporal causes with no first cause. Such a thing is nevertheless contingent on uncaused existence for the regression to be uncaused.

Quite. Contingent on does not imply caused by. Me choosing steak in a restaurant is contingent on, but not caused by, steak being on the menu. Likewise an infinite regression is contingent on existence existing, but not caused by it.

The concept God is not synonymous with uncaused existence.

Then there is no God.

The only "thing" which can be God in anyway is the uncaused Existence. All other notions of a God are fantasy. http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/im...s/shrug.gifGod is uncaused being.

[37818]

Sorry, losing me again there. It was you who said now the cause of no first cause would be an uncaused cause which I took meant the absence of a first cause required an (uncaused) cause.

Yes. it is my view, in an infinite regression of causes with no first cause would be caused by an external uncaused cause. You reject that. That leaves only the "regression" itself as a whole to be an uncaused regression. Which is made up of an infinite set of finite and temporal causes. Yet being contingent on uncaused existence, the regression uncaused as a whole being made up of an infinite set of lesser finite and temporal causes.

Quite. Contingent on does not imply caused by. Me choosing steak in a restaurant is contingent on, but not caused by, steak being on the menu. Likewise an infinite regression is contingent on existence existing, but not caused by it.

Existence is something different than a cause. But nothing can be self-caused.

Uncaused existence is self-existent not self-caused. The uncaused regression not having a cause would have to be in some way one and the same with the uncaused existence, and yet it is not that uncaused existence in that it is made up of an infinite set of finite and temporal causes.

The uncaused regression would be both uncaused existence and not the uncaused existence. Kind a like the Son of God in the incarnation being both God and being a man which is not God. The analogy is there like it or not.

You are arguing that God need not be God.

[shunyadragon]

Yes. it is my view, in an infinite regression of causes with no first cause would be caused by an external uncaused cause.

You have always side stepped and avoided the possibility that Natural Law is the 'uncaused cause,' Natural Law by the evidence simply exists, and does not represent a series of cause and effect relationships that you describe as an 'infinite regression.' The chain of cause and effect relationships would be caused by the existence of Natural Law. It is also possible that the infinite chain of cause and effect relationships may be described as 'potentially infinite.'

[37818]

You have always side stepped and avoided the possibility that Natural Law is the 'uncaused cause,' Natural Law by the evidence simply exists, and does not represent a series of cause and effect relationships that you describe as an 'infinite regression.' The chain of cause and effect relationships would be caused by the existence of Natural Law. It is also possible that the infinite chain of cause and effect relationships may be described as 'potentially infinite.'

Natural law is the natural revelation being the word of God in my view (Psalm 19:1-4; Romans 10:17-18). So from that stand point and God's absolute omniscience has no beginning with God. And it is God who is infinite who is the source of natural law (John 1:3 through the second person of the Godhead, BTW).

[crepuscule]

Yes. it is my view, in an infinite regression of causes with no first cause would be caused by an external uncaused cause. You reject that.

I do, for an obvious reason. A regression that has no first cause can by definition not have an uncaused cause.

That leaves only the "regression" itself as a whole to be an uncaused regression. Which is made up of an infinite set of finite and temporal causes. Yet being contingent on uncaused existence, the regression uncaused as a whole being made up of an infinite set of lesser finite and temporal causes.http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/im...lies/shrug.gif

Again, the existence of a regression is dependent on (the possibility of) existence existing, but not necessarily caused by it.

Existence is something different than a cause.

contingent on existence is not the same as a regression being caused by existence. You keep on arguing as if the first implies the second.

But nothing can be self-caused.

Yup.

Uncaused existence is self-existent not self-caused. The uncaused regression not having a cause would have to be in some way one and the same with the uncaused existence, and yet it is not that uncaused existence in that it is made up of an infinite set of finite and temporal causes.

The uncaused regression would be both uncaused existence and not the uncaused existence.

The regression as a whole would be uncaused. Each part is caused by another.

Kind a like the Son of God in the incarnation being both God and being a man which is not God. The analogy is there like it or not.

So according to you that can't exist either?

You are arguing that God need not be God.

not just uncaused existence.