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

  • #31
    Originally posted by Doug Shaver View Post
    Yes, it is. Your argument is: "If I say it, then it is true." It doesn't get any simpler than that.
    Is it true or not that nothingness never was?

    Is it true or not that uncaused existence is of itself?

    Is it true or not since uncaused existence needs no God, unless uncaused existence is God there is no God?
    . . . the Gospel of Christ, for it is [the] power of God to salvation to every [one] believing, . . . -- Romans 1:16.

    . . . 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.

    Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1.

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
      Clarify - No, the concept of 1+1=2 does not need a God from the human perspective.

      Bold is simply an assertion of belief from the human perspective, and is only true IF God exists, and not related to whether the concept of 1+1=2 does not need a God
      You did not understand the argument.
      . . . the Gospel of Christ, for it is [the] power of God to salvation to every [one] believing, . . . -- Romans 1:16.

      . . . 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.

      Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1.

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by 37818 View Post
        A number of issues here. 1) Uncaused existence is the reason that there is anything. Like 1 + 1 = 2.
        Really? so if nothing existed, or if there were no minds to conceive of it, then the concept of 1+1=2 would itself be in error, or what?

        2) And uncaused cause is something other than uncaused existence even though both are uncaused. Cause requires an existence. Uncaused existence only requires itself.
        You're going to have to unpack that a bit, because I don't believe it makes the sense you think it does.
        3) Now as to the question of God. For starters, uncaused existence needs no God. . . .
        True, nor does it need be qualified as a god, so what's your point?

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by 37818 View Post
          Is it true or not that nothingness never was?
          It is unknown whether absolute nothingness ever was or not,

          Is it true or not that uncaused existence is of itself?
          True whether the uncaused existence is Nature or God.

          Is it true or not since uncaused existence needs no God,
          True, from the human perspective.

          . . . unless uncaused existence is God there is no God?
          confusing, IF the uncaused existence is natural there is no God. IF the uncaused existence is God, than of course there is a God.
          Last edited by shunyadragon; 07-22-2018, 01:14 PM.
          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


          • #35
            Originally posted by 37818 View Post
            You did not understand the argument.
            I quoted you. If there is a problem you need to define your argument better.
            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


            • #36
              Originally posted by 37818 View Post
              Well, if you were to show someone the invisible God how would you do it. God being invisible and all?


              How would that show that the non-existent Santa Clause had a real existence?
              It's your argument, not mine! or non-argument as the case may be.

              How was your argument an argument at all? I am completely at a loss at what your point is.

              Proud Member of Da Blonde's Axis of Evil, Adam's Dirty Dozen, Dee Dee's Goon Squad, Tweb's In-Crowd, The Brood of Vipers & Exorcised by Ty & Dee Dee, and the only person who ever banned rogue06!

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                I quoted you. If there is a problem you need to define your argument better.
                Originally posted by 37818 View Post
                It has existence. Uncaused existence. So unless uncaused Existence is not God, then yes, God being uncaused Existence would be the fundamental self evident truth by which all other self evident truths are self evident.
                Only if uncaused existence is not God, the concept of 1 + 1 = 2 would not be do to God.

                ". . . then yes, God being uncaused Existence would be the fundamental self evident truth by which all other self evident truths are self evident." So on the premise that the uncaused Existence is God, then the concept that 1 + 1 = 2 would be do to God as would any other self evident truths.
                . . . the Gospel of Christ, for it is [the] power of God to salvation to every [one] believing, . . . -- Romans 1:16.

                . . . 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.

                Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                  It's your argument, not mine! or non-argument as the case may be.

                  How was your argument an argument at all? I am completely at a loss at what your point is.
                  I argued that existence needs no proof. Santa Clause is your argument.
                  . . . the Gospel of Christ, for it is [the] power of God to salvation to every [one] believing, . . . -- Romans 1:16.

                  . . . 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.

                  Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                    It is unknown whether absolute nothingness ever was or not,
                    What ever "was" is never nothingness. You do not understand the argument.
                    . . . the Gospel of Christ, for it is [the] power of God to salvation to every [one] believing, . . . -- Romans 1:16.

                    . . . 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.

                    Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by 37818 View Post
                      I argued that existence needs no proof. Santa Clause is your argument.
                      I was showing you that merely stating that "existence needs no proof" is meaningless. Merely claiming God exists and needs no proof is fine if you already believe he exists, or you are pointing to a physical object everyone can see, like a tree. And to you and me God is self-evident. But we have proof he exists. He has touched our lives. Neither of us believes in God's existence without evidence. Why do you expect others to do so?

                      To merely claim that he needs no proof to someone who doesn't believe in him, is just futility on your part. You might as well claim Santa Clause exists and if someone asks you for proof, say "existence needs no proof"

                      What you are doing is an excuse, not an argument.

                      Proud Member of Da Blonde's Axis of Evil, Adam's Dirty Dozen, Dee Dee's Goon Squad, Tweb's In-Crowd, The Brood of Vipers & Exorcised by Ty & Dee Dee, and the only person who ever banned rogue06!

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by 37818 View Post
                        I argued that existence needs no proof. Santa Clause is your argument.
                        If existence needs no proof then the existence of Santa needs no proof.

                        Your argument rests on the assumption of God's existence. That's fine when not in dispute - but atheists dispute it, When an assumption is disputed, proof is required.

                        Quit skipping step one.

                        "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)

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by 37818 View Post
                          What ever "was" is never nothingness. You do not understand the argument.
                          Quit making me agree with Shuny! He understands fine (for once) - you are the one who doesn't understand the framework.

                          "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)

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by 37818 View Post
                            Atheism irrefutable is a logically deduced system of belief as a basis that there cannot be any God or else that there is God and is what is really irrefutable here.

                            * Step 1. Nothingness never existed. Anything to exist would not be nothingness. An existence is in evidence. And nothing can come from nothing.

                            * Step 2. So therefore there was always something, an existence, an uncaused existence.

                            Before we go beyond these two steps. What do you agree or disagree with them alone. And that an existence is in evidence, as is our using logic. We are presuming them from the very beginning without proofs.
                            And right off the bat, you add another disputed assumption - that there was never a time (colloquelle) that nothing existed. As a Christian, I've no problem accepting this - but an atheist may or may not accept this premise. I'm pretty sure Jim doesn't - I think Shuny might.


                            False. My starting presumption is uncaused existence. Now uncaused existence needs no proof and can be deduced from steps 1 & 2. [As for God, I have an unfair advantage of knowing Him before I even proposed steps 1 & 2. No one can honestly deny a thing that one knows.] Step 3 is an either or argument. But you have to agree with steps 1 & 2 first.
                            That's one of your starting assumptions, yes - but here you make a huge mistake - you presume that existence is itself a proof - which the aforementioned atheists do not necessarily accept. heck, not all Christians would (especially those from theistic evolution schools) so YES, you are skipping Step One and yes, the assumption existence of God is in fact where your argument begins.

                            The mutually held assumption which is mucking you up here is that existence exists - we're all pretty much on board with that (a few Platonics might wanna dither) - you seem to have confused that assumption with the idea that because you don't need to prove it (since it's mutually held) you don't need to prove anything related to it - which isn't true.

                            Not really. An atheist has two choices. 1) There are only caused existences [Which logically requires an uncaused existence.] Or 2) that there is an uncaused existence. Which again would bring us to step 3.
                            They find causality in physics so no, this doesn't paint them into that corner without a whole lot of proof work - all the stuff your posit is trying to skip.

                            Again, this has to do with step 3. And that [uncaused] existence needs no proof.

                            In all classical arguments for proof of the "existence" of God, existence is presumed without its proof. Uncaused existence does not need any kind of God. [Part of the argument in step 3].

                            Now we need to first agree on both steps 1 and then step 2.
                            So God exists because He didn't have to create Himself? You're back to circular reasoning...

                            "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)

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by Teallaura View Post
                              And right off the bat, you add another disputed assumption - that there was never a time (colloquelle) that nothing existed.
                              We have to stop here. Either a thing is true or not true. Either it is true there was always something or it is true that there was a never anything. Both things cannot be true. And if there was ever never anything, how would we ever get to have something?
                              . . . the Gospel of Christ, for it is [the] power of God to salvation to every [one] believing, . . . -- Romans 1:16.

                              . . . 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.

                              Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by 37818 View Post
                                We have to stop here. Either a thing is true or not true. Either it is true there was always something or it is true that there was a never anything. Both things cannot be true. And if there was ever never anything, how would we ever get to have something?
                                Existence is not necessarily objective - it could just be a mental state with no physical reality at all (quantum leads toward this rabbit hole). We assume that existence and physical reality are objective - but there is no way to prove it 100%.

                                All arguments rest on assumptions like this - we usually ignore them because most are already mutually accepted and we don't need to revisit them - but they are in fact assumptions. So to, is the assumption that things can be true or not true. And that the rules of logic are true - there are a bunch of assumptions that we rarely visit yet are in fact assumptions.

                                This is why Descarte's 'I think therefore I am' comes about - at some point you HAVE to make assumptions or all logic and philosophy (and science - gravity is an assumption too!) go swirling down an infinite regression and you cannot get anywhere. Which seems on the face of it really stupid - regardless of how many times you must split the distance in half, you do eventually hit bottom if you fall off a cliff.

                                Argumentation occurs in the abstract - and that's where you have trouble. To you most of what i just called assumptions are obvious facts - and you can't seem to adjust to the idea that nothing is absolutely certain - at least not in the fallen world, it's not.

                                "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)

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X