Disproving the Bible

[Wyrd of Gawd]

If Jesus is God and if Jesus did die then neither Jesus nor God is necessary for the functioning of the universe. That's because when Jesus died everything continued just as it always did with no major disruptions in the universe.

[Esquilax]

Contingency Argument (as explained by WLC)
1. Anything that exists has an explanation of its existence (either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external cause).

According to premise 1 there are two kinds of things: (a) things which exist necessarily and (b) things which exist contingently. Things which exist necessarily exist by a necessity of their own nature. Many mathematicians think that numbers, sets, and other mathematical entities exist in this way. They’re not caused to exist by something else; they just exist by the necessity of their own nature. By contrast, contingent things are caused to exist by something else. They exist because something else has produced them. Familiar physical objects like people, planets, and galaxies belong in this category.

What determination did you make to come to the conclusion that there's only two types of things? Or that things which exist necessarily can go beyond simple abstractions?

More importantly, numbers and mathematical entities don't exist in any real sense, they're functions of the human mind's attempt to quantify things for ease of communication. You and WLC are making the same mistake, of thinking that numbers exist in some abstract sense beyond human consciousness, that two equals two because there's some concept of two existing independently of minds that imposes itself upon pairs of things, rather than because that's what we've labelled any grouping of one more than one thing, but one less than three things. Numbers don't exist at all, they're a part of our language, and nothing more. Don't mistake conceptual things for things that actually exist independent of conscious thought.

And now you've got a problem, because you haven't established that anything is in the "exists necessarily" category. Even if we had just accepted that numbers were in it, you still hadn't bothered establishing that gods would be too. You seem to have real trouble with demonstrating your claims in general, actually. You make a lot of assertions, but merely saying something is so doesn't make it so: if you think it does, then there's a third category, "things that exist not," where only things that can never possibly exist ever are, and god is a part of that category. See how that's a problem?

2. If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is God.

If the universe has a cause of its existence, that cause must be a non-physical, immaterial being beyond space and time. Now there are only two sorts of thing that could fit that description: either an abstract object like a number or else an unembodied mind. But abstract objects can’t cause anything. So the cause of the existence of the universe must be a transcendent Mind, which is what believers understand God to be.

The issue here is that all the things you say "must" be attributes of the cause of existence, haven't been demonstrated to be the cause of existence. You're just saying words, and providing no evidence to back it up. Now, most of us here are familiar enough with WLC's brand of apologetics to know what the actual argument is for this, but he, like you, makes the mistake of thinking that just asserting attributes as "necessary" makes that the case. He argues by defining his conclusions as things that absolutely must happen, but you can't simply wrap a demand that an argument is true around a bunch of assertions and then walk away: there needs to be some demonstration that the argument is true, or else all you've done is say a bunch of words, label those words as true because you want them to be, and then expect everyone else to disprove them.

Anyone can do that. It's not hard. It's also not persuasive.

[Tonus]

2. If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is God.

"God" is not an explanation. You know, if the god you believed in cared enough to reveal himself plainly to the whole world, you wouldn't have to make such poor arguments just to try to convince us that some kind of god has to exist. Isn't it convenient that everyone's god was busy roaming the world and showing up at parties and putting on grandiose displays of 'godness' and then, just as humanity was really sharpening its record-keeping pencils, he disappears. And he spends the past two-thousand years teasing humanity with clouds shaped like doves, or mildew shaped like the virgin Mary, or Elvis sightings in Las Vegas, or whatever it is that you happen to interpret as 'god reminding us that he's really there.'

The OTG (one true god) needs to step up his game, because he's leaving guys like you with one heck of a mess to have to clean up day after day.

[JesusHMuhammad]

http://www.project-reason.org/gallery3/image/105/

---

http://sciencebasedlife.files.wordpress....roject.png

[JesusHChrist]

SteveII's post seems to be mostly a copy/paste job from:

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/argument-...ontingency

Perhaps SteveII is talking past us as he doesn't really understand what is being discussed or the numerous and various refutations that exist.

[Bibliofagus]

Contingency Argument (as explained by WLC)
1. Anything that exists has an explanation of its existence
2. If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is Bibliofagus
3. The universe exits, Bibliofagus obviously does as well
4. Therefore the explanation of the existence of the universe is Bibliofagus.

I'm qualifying better than your god it seems.

[SteveII]

See, it doesn't actually matter to Steve whether or not he's on firm ground. All that matters, is that he thinks that he has something to add to the conversation. Talking at people, and not to them or with them. None of this is even important to him, because it doesn't inform his faith.

Fucking charlatan.

Wow. You have some real anger issues. I have no illusions about trying to convince you of anything. As I stated in another thread, I am new to this and wanted to discuss it with people who would argue the points. What better place to come to than this forum where there is obviously no mercy? I didn't think it would get so personal, but now I know better and I have adjusted my expectations...

---

SteveII's post seems to be mostly a copy/paste job from:

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/argument-...ontingency

Perhaps SteveII is talking past us as he doesn't really understand what is being discussed or the numerous and various refutations that exist.

Thanks for the link. I was wondering where I had left off. I was always clear where I got my content from.

[FatAndFaithless]

See, it doesn't actually matter to Steve whether or not he's on firm ground. All that matters, is that he thinks that he has something to add to the conversation. Talking at people, and not to them or with them. None of this is even important to him, because it doesn't inform his faith.

Fucking charlatan.

Wow. You have some real anger issues. I have no illusions about trying to convince you of anything. As I stated in another thread, I am new to this and wanted to discuss it with people who would argue the points. What better place to come to than this forum where there is obviously no mercy? I didn't think it would get so personal, but now I know better and I have adjusted my expectations...

Might want to directly address the more than half-dozen people that replied to your claims.

[Jenny A]

Missed this:

Regarding Moses, he wandered in the wilderness for 80 years. Did you expect to find a body? The oral and then written tradition of the ancient Hebrews is all we have to indicate that an ancient Hebrew lived.

A body I do would not expect, but Moses is supposed to have: caused the death of the first born son of every Egyptian, escaped with 600,000 slaves, wiped out the Egyptian army, and wandered the desert with 600,000 people for 40 years. Yes I would expect some Egyptian record of that and some archeological record of the 40 years.

[The Grand Nudger]

But that might get in the way of a good pity party Faithless.